Re: Debian-specific Autoconf patches

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hi Paul,

* Paul Eggert wrote on Fri, May 26, 2006 at 06:42:05AM CEST:
> Ben Pfaff <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > I see that Paul Eggert has confirmed that it's a bug.
> 
> Well, it's definitely a bug if you assume the rest of my patch
> <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf-patches/2006-05/msg00118.html>,
> as it tightens up the rules for "eval".
> 
> I am a leeetle surprised that it is a bug without the rest of my patch
> -- this suggests that "eval" is even bugger than I thought.

I don't understand this sentence.  If, by "bugger" you mean buggier,
then I wonder which "bug" you are referring to: the documentation
part of the cited patch doesn't mention any issue that can be qualified
as a bug in some shell, only fundamental limitations of "eval".[1]
But I probably have just misunderstood the above, and you meant bugs
in Autoconf's use of "eval".

FWIW, CVS Libtool has some functions to deal better with this situation.
But they are not perfect either[2].  I think Noah has at one time
expressed intent to make them Bug-Free[TM]; but IMVHO the remaining
issues aren't too critical for Libtool, and probably not for most uses
of Autoconf either.

Cheers,
Ralf (thinking out loud a bit too much)

[1] I could go and say that these are well-known and long-established;
but fact is it took me a long time to understand them even half-way...

[2] And they don't use the single-quote style quoting that Autoconf
uses; I like it better, maybe Libtool should switch to it eventually.