Re: m4_wrap behavior

[Paul Eggert]

Stepan Kasal <address@hidden> writes:

> But such a wrapper is not needed for Autoconf proper....
> ...
> Luckily, there is no risk of installing a broken version of autoconf;
> the build will break, since autoconf.as is a m4sh script.

Sorry, I'm lost.  If Autoconf doesn't need a wrapper, then why does a
build break with a 2.0-like m4?

I'm fine with documenting that m4_wrap order is
implementation-dependent, but I'd like to see a patch that will cause
Autoconf to work regardless of m4wrap order.