Re: 4-gary-AC_PROG_GREP.patch [Was Re: Find best grep for AIX]

[Gary V . Vaughan]

Hi Paul,

On Monday, January 26, 2004, at 09:14  pm, Paul Eggert wrote:
> One other thing (sorry to keep coming up with new stuff):

All in the name of quality.  I appreciate the feedback. (:

> Why bother looking for gfgrep and gegrep?  As it stands, the code
> always prefers a GNU grep to a non-GNU grep, so it will find (say)
> ggrep, and since GNU grep supports -E it will always use "ggrep -E"
> instead of "gegrep".  Therefore, there's no reason to look for gegrep.
> Similarly for gfgrep.

It seems more orthogonal (to sed/gsed, grep/ggrep), and maybe someone
installed GNU egrep as gegrep, but not ggrep or gfgrep?  I know that's
stretching it a bit, but why not try and work in that situation too when
it doesn't cost anything?

I don't have a strong feeling either way really, just trying to be even
handed (-:

Anyway, I merged your cmp->diff patch, and fixed some latent bugs with
cache var handling.  Here's the result (with g{e,f}grep removed).

Okay to apply?

Cheers,
        Gary.

P.S. I can't do anymore revisions of this patch, because I don't know 
the
latin for fifth (-;
--
Gary V. Vaughan      ())_.  address@hidden,gnu.org}
Research Scientist   ( '/   http://www.oranda.demon.co.uk
GNU Hacker           / )=   http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool
Technical Author   `(_~)_   http://sources.redhat.com/autobook

4quater-gary-AC_PROG_GREP.patch
Description: Binary data