[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 2.63b autotest vs. bison testsuite
From: |
Eric Blake |
Subject: |
Re: 2.63b autotest vs. bison testsuite |
Date: |
Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:05:19 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090302 Thunderbird/2.0.0.21 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
According to Ralf Wildenhues on 4/15/2009 12:29 PM:
>> As in the following. Any objections to this patch? In addition to adding
>> hard failures, it documents and tests AT_CHECK_NOESCAPE, and also tests
>> the ability to run post-AT_CHECK cleanup.
>
> I'm wondering whether s/AT_CHECK_NOESCAPE/AT_CHECK_EXPAND/g would be
> good. Even with that, the name makes me think that the macro would do
> something different with its first argument, rather than arguments
> number three and four. Unfortunately, I don't have a good suggestion
> to improve this.
Or even AT_CHECK_UNQUOTED, to match the existing naming of
AC_DEFINE/AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED. Well, now's the time to make a name change,
if any, as part of making it documented. Anyone using the older
undocumented interface can update, or even add a shim:
m4_ifndef([AT_CHECK_UNQUOTED],
[m4_copy([AT_CHECK_NOESCAPE], [AT_CHECK_UNQUOTED])])
- --
Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well!
Eric Blake address@hidden
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAknmPf8ACgkQ84KuGfSFAYDGHACg1Y3Oy3H4Lems+Err1sUvHoCa
A00An0LVqfkN2WYihsYK+1SH5nLE87dz
=/peA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- 2.63b autotest vs. bison testsuite, Eric Blake, 2009/04/06
- Re: 2.63b autotest vs. bison testsuite, Ralf Wildenhues, 2009/04/06
- Re: 2.63b autotest vs. bison testsuite, Eric Blake, 2009/04/06
- Re: 2.63b autotest vs. bison testsuite, Eric Blake, 2009/04/09
- Re: 2.63b autotest vs. bison testsuite, Eric Blake, 2009/04/13
- Re: 2.63b autotest vs. bison testsuite, Ralf Wildenhues, 2009/04/15
- Re: 2.63b autotest vs. bison testsuite,
Eric Blake <=
- Re: 2.63b autotest vs. bison testsuite, Eric Blake, 2009/04/23
- Re: 2.63b autotest vs. bison testsuite, Eric Blake, 2009/04/23
- Re: 2.63b autotest vs. bison testsuite, Ralf Wildenhues, 2009/04/23
- Re: 2.63b autotest vs. bison testsuite, Eric Blake, 2009/04/24
- Re: 2.63b autotest vs. bison testsuite, Ralf Wildenhues, 2009/04/24