[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: Forbidden strings

From: Bernard Dautrevaux
Subject: RE: Forbidden strings
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 13:53:20 +0100

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Akim Demaille [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 10:58 AM
> To: Alexandre Oliva
> Cc: Pavel Roskin; address@hidden; address@hidden
> Subject: Re: Forbidden strings
> >>>>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <address@hidden> writes:
> >> I'd rather take almost the full range and except AR if we need to.
> Alexandre> I'd prefer that the maintainers of autoconf weren't so
> Alexandre> greedy about prefixes :-)
> In fact my position (let's take the full range) is also based on a
> simple fact: if today the Libtool team needs AR, maybe tomorrow they
> will want AC_.  Them, or anybody else.  So just putting the feet where
> it seems sane ([ACUHTS]) seems just a means to hide the problem to me.
> That's also why I insisted on having produce configure
> even if there are forbidden strings in it: how can you be sure that's
> not what meant the author.
> So, how about something like a special comment/macro stating what are
> the *words* that are allowed.  Something like
> m4_accept_literals([AR_FLAGS], [lt_cv_AR_FLAGS])
> then would just gather these guys, and say nothing about
> them.

That'll be fine, especially as in the future it can be extended to even
*warn* if I try to use as reserved a word that *is* an existing macro (or if
a new macro was created that conflict with my reserved word) :-)

Then we'll have both flexibility *and* (some degree of) security.



Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingenierie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
Tel:    +33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax:    +33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
e-mail: address@hidden

reply via email to

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