Re: m4_for bug?

[Stepan Kasal]

Hello Ralf and Eric,

On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 03:22:48PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> OTOH, I do think that an m4_for that has an empty 5th argument
> should not magically do the wrong thing, which really rules out 
> that the comma following the optional STEP may be dropped.
> Let's remember that macros that depend on $# are mostly evil.

I think that this is how things currently stand for Autoconf:
the manual explains that passing an empty argument is equivalent to
not passing it at all (and usually leads to a default value). 

IOW, the Autoconf manual pretends that $# does not exist, and
checking whether a certain positional argument is empty is all we
have.

This can be questioned, but I'm affraid it might be difficult to
change it.

Stepan Kasal