mirror/autoconf
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of git://git.sv.gnu.org/autoconf synced 2024-11-27 01:49:56 +08:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

* TODO: Add an item for additional m4sugar looping constructs.

Browse Source 
Suggested by Ralf Wildenhues.

Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <ebb9@byu.net>
This commit is contained in:
Eric Blake 2008-08-22 08:31:03 -06:00
parent ce818dc20b
commit 0b8af13415
2 changed files with 14 additions and 2 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

3
ChangeLog
View File

@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
2008-08-22 Eric Blake <ebb9@byu.net>
* TODO: Add an item for additional m4sugar looping constructs.
Suggested by Ralf Wildenhues.
Add reminder to keep dual implementations in sync.
* lib/m4sugar/m4sugar.m4: Add comments.
* lib/m4sugar/foreach.m4: Likewise.

13
TODO
View File

@ -228,6 +228,15 @@ this for translators.
F**k! --trace FOO does not catch indir([FOO], $@)!
Fixed in M4 1.6, but we can't rely on it yet.
** m4 loops
As of 2.63, m4_for has a fixed iteration count for speed in the common
usage case. But it used to allow the user to alter iteration count by
reassigning the iterator, allowing a break-like functionality (or even
infloops). Does this need a new (but maybe slower) macro? Should we
also provide something like m4_while([TEST], [EXPR])? Maybe an
m4_break() that works inside a looping construct?
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf-patches/2008-08/msg00121.html
* Autoconf 3
** Cache name spaces.
@ -246,7 +255,7 @@ should depend upon the current language.
I think one sad decision in Autoconf was to use white space separated
lists for some arguments. For instance AC_CHECK_FUNCS(foo bar). I
tend to think that, even if it is not as nice, we should use m4 lists,
i.e., AC_CHECK_FUNCS((foo, bar)) in this case. This would ease
i.e., AC_CHECK_FUNCS([foo, bar]) in this case. This would ease
specializing loops, and more importantly, make them much more robust.
A typical example of things that can be performed if we use m4 lists
@ -255,7 +264,7 @@ a space in their names, eg, structures.
With the current scheme it would be extremely difficult to loop over
AC_CHECK_STRUCTS(struct foo struct bar), while it natural and well
defined for m4 lists: AC_CHECK_STRUCTS((struct foo, struct bar)).
defined for m4 lists: AC_CHECK_STRUCTS([struct foo, struct bar]).
I know that makes a huge difference in syntax, but a major release
should be ready to settle a new world. We *can* provide helping tools