[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: converting netkit to autoconf?

From: Akim Demaille
Subject: Re: converting netkit to autoconf?
Date: 03 Sep 2002 09:15:20 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Honest Recruiter)

recently back from vacations :)

>>>>> "Bruce" == Bruce Korb <address@hidden> writes:

Bruce> Paul Eggert wrote:

>> M4's rules are sometimes painful, but the shell's are often worse.

Bruce> No way.  What is crucial in quoting rules is that they be
Bruce> consistent.  M4's are not.  Second in importance is that they
Bruce> be few in number.  M4, si, shell, no!

Your sentence makes no sense to me.  M4 quotes are the most consistent
one can design.  The system is so simple, that it's even simplistic
and fails to let us produce simple closing quotes in the output.  But
once that problem solved with quadrigraph, you end up with the most
simple system you could imagine.

My own grief wrt M4 is that programming properly in M4 is programming
in a lazy language.  But (i) the language itself does not promote Lazy
Functional Programming enough, and (ii) (this is bound to (i)) the
performances are very bad since it does not take advantage of all that
can be done when compiling such languages.

Bruce> If you assume shell functions, you will certainly save a lot of
Bruce> unnecessary complexity.

Definitely.  I expect a lot from shell functions.  Including saving
space, and improving performances  (with good shells).

reply via email to

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