[Top][All Lists]

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


From: Thomas Dickey
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:40:19 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:

Hi Thomas,

* Thomas Dickey wrote on Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 11:54:33AM CET:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:

AC_DEFINE([foo], [bar baz])

The "new" syntax is backward-compatible to the dark ages, and should
have been, had it not been for the lazyness of the people in the dark
ages, used and promoted from day one.

actually it is not (being kind, one must assume that you're aware that is
an oversimplification).  It is "mostly" compatible, but not backward

This is news to me, I had previously thought this to be backward
compatible in any possible way.  Could you be bothered to explain
in which way it fails this?  Pointers welcome.

offhand, I recall that the quoting changes (for which there is an incompatible workaround) broke the way one could use changequote.
Some places that allowed substitution no longer do (an easy case
there is the help message).

That's for macro internals, of course.  The "[foo]" cited above
works either way.

Thomas E. Dickey

reply via email to

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