[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf

From: Alexandre Oliva
Subject: Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf
Date: 11 Apr 2001 19:41:28 -0300
User-agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley)

On Apr 11, 2001, Akim Demaille <address@hidden> wrote:

> We are about to write new tools, typically autom4te, on top of which
> autoheader, autoconf etc. will be rewritten.  I'm fed up with
> addressing portability issues on the maintainer side.

That's why we should have this portability library coded in m4sh.
Instead of repeatedly fixing the same problems over and over, we
should have them coded right once, and then used all over.  This will
not only document the portability problems and solutions, but also
make it easier for us to fix problems whenever they're found, reduce
the learning curve of candidate new maintainers, and introduce new
foundations for portable scripting.

Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see
Red Hat GCC Developer                  address@hidden,}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        address@hidden,}
Free Software Evangelist    *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]