[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: m4_for bug?

From: Stepan Kasal
Subject: Re: m4_for bug?
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 12:14:53 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/

Hello Ralf and Eric,

On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 03:22:48PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> OTOH, I do think that an m4_for that has an empty 5th argument
> should not magically do the wrong thing, which really rules out 
> that the comma following the optional STEP may be dropped.
> Let's remember that macros that depend on $# are mostly evil.

I think that this is how things currently stand for Autoconf:
the manual explains that passing an empty argument is equivalent to
not passing it at all (and usually leads to a default value). 

IOW, the Autoconf manual pretends that $# does not exist, and
checking whether a certain positional argument is empty is all we

This can be questioned, but I'm affraid it might be difficult to
change it.

Stepan Kasal

reply via email to

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