[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch
From: |
Paolo Bonzini |
Subject: |
Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch |
Date: |
Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:52:04 +0100 |
> Currently it selects the "best" shell based on LINENO support. I
> believe that the proper means to implement shell function support in
> M4sh would be the converse: look for a shell that supports functions,
> and then check that it supports LINENO.
In principle you're right, but I meant to follow another way. We've been
for so long without shell functions, that I think we would get much even
from very limited shell function support (or at least I would). With "very
limited", I mean that the only necessary abilities would be to a) define
them, and b) return an exit code. Actually I would get by with a) only but
I remember that Paul Eggert wanted b) too.
Now, is there a shell which AS_INIT likes (because it has good LINENO) and
which fails to satisfy these requests? If so, you do have a point, but I
reckon the answer is no.
More in general, is there a document about the varying degrees of support
for functions in different Bourne shells?
Paolo
- 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch, Paolo Bonzini, 2003/11/14
- Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch, Akim Demaille, 2003/11/21
- Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch,
Paolo Bonzini <=
- Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch, Paul Eggert, 2003/11/24
- Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch, Akim Demaille, 2003/11/24
- Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch, Paolo Bonzini, 2003/11/24
- Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch, Akim Demaille, 2003/11/24
- Message not available
- Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch, Akim Demaille, 2003/11/24
- Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch, Bonzini, 2003/11/25
- Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch, Akim Demaille, 2003/11/26
- Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch, Paolo Bonzini, 2003/11/26
- Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch, Akim Demaille, 2003/11/26
- Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch, Paolo Bonzini, 2003/11/27