>>>>> "Walter" == Walter E Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Walter> I had raised (rather courteously, I thought) some technical Walter> issues in my several recent notes to this mailing list. Why don't you expose your technical problem first. Autoconf is not built on theories, but facing problems. Currently you exposed no problems at all. Being able to vote about C++ is a great thing, really. Now Autoconf is hear to cope with this language in real situation. What is the real situation you are facing? Walter> At the moment, it is my opinion that autoconf is not Walter> well-supporting the C++ community. We all share this opinion. Walter> I have previously offered rationale for my views, and have Walter> even suggested alternatives for consideration. I'd like Walter> someone to make an authoritative decision on the need for Walter> implicit, undocumented support for a "feature" that runs Walter> contrary to established C++ philosophy in general, and that Walter> has the potential for breaking (and has broken) user code. This claim was never supported by actual code. I second what has been said here: Autoconf is not here to be beautiful, but to answer concrete problems. Each time someone asked you what your concrete problem was, you answered in text instead of Autoconf code. Walter> I regret that I will be away from my office for several weeks Walter> while my wife recuperates from surgery (scheduled for early Walter> tomorrow morning -- your thoughts and prayers on her behalf Walter> would be welcomed), All the best!
