Hi Thomas, * Thomas Dickey wrote on Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 11:54:33AM CET: > On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > >AC_DEFINE([foo], [bar baz])
> >The "new" syntax is backward-compatible to the dark ages, and should > >have been, had it not been for the lazyness of the people in the dark > >ages, used and promoted from day one. > > actually it is not (being kind, one must assume that you're aware that is > an oversimplification). It is "mostly" compatible, but not backward > compatible. This is news to me, I had previously thought this to be backward compatible in any possible way. Could you be bothered to explain in which way it fails this? Pointers welcome. Cheers, Ralf
