Re: m4_wrap behavior

[Paul Eggert]

address@hidden (Eric Blake) writes:

> Wouldn't that be m4_wrap_lifo for autoconf 2.60, if we want
> minimal code changes to the rest of autoconf?

Yes, sorry, my typo.

> Speaking of which, here is an idea towards a simpler
> m4-2.0-proof definition of m4_wrap, with less overhead
> per use of m4_wrap than my earlier patch (no ChangeLog
> provided, as this is just an idea for now).

That suggestion looks good to me (needs a documentation update for
m4_wrap of course).  I like that it clearly doesn't affect behavior
unless m4 2.0 is used.  I'd vote for this going into 2.60.