Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch

[Akim Demaille]

 > Akim Demaille <address@hidden> writes:
 >> I admit I understood your patch as the first step towards using shfn
 >> in Autoconf, but I'm wrong, sorry.  Nevertheless, it seems to me that
 >> this is an incorrect path to our ultimate goal: use shfn asap in
 >> Autoconf.

 > I don't see why the proposed change slows down the accomplishment of
 > that ultimate goal.  As far as I can tell, it neither helps that goal
 > nor hurts it.  If that's correct, then it can be judged on its own
 > merits according to its own goals.

Well, indeed, I'm criticizing the fact that "it neither helps that
goal".  It could help, so let's make it helpful.


 >> To this end, we need to measure the availability of shfn support,
 >> not the shfn support amongst LINENO supporting shells.

 > It won't suffice to try the few little tests that have been proposed
 > so far.  The only real test will be an extensive use of shell
 > functions.  

Of course.  But we need to start from somewhere.

 > So, I don't favor having a "spy" in Autoconf: I don't think it will
 > suffice (and also I don't like to wade through all the useless
 > chatter that such spies produce :-). 

I agree it is a pain, but it was needed.  I am happy I resisted when
people told me to make that change without even a simple round of
warnings, and I'm happy too that I helped some people and that some
people helped me have a better documentation.

Of course there are flaws, and in the future, I will refer to an URL
first, so that people can sort a bit by themselves too.  But it would
have been wrong to make the CPP/CC change without such a warning.

 > I'd prefer to have Autotest use shell functions extensively, and
 > have Autotest be the guinea bug.

Sure!  I never said the opposite!  I'm claiming that this is just not
enough by itself, and that the ultimate goal is using shfn in
Autoconf: so let's learn asap about the shfn support in our audience.