[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: Akim Demaille
Subject: Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf
Date: 12 Apr 2001 12:17:09 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley)

>>>>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <address@hidden> writes:

Alexandre> 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.

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

Your claim does not apply IMHO.  The recent bug reports about are exactly what I'm referring too: AWK is too weak a
language for us to test the existence of a file, and AWK
implementations disagree on what to do in such a case.

configure is not concerned by this.

Because we need more, there is no reason to remain bound to sh.

reply via email to

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