Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > And frankly, I don't know a good way to make things easier here. > changequote IMHO isn't one: as soon as you *know* where you would > have needed it, you can also just use another quoting style.
The complexity stems from both the m4 language choice and the brevity of the chosen quote markers. The language issue is that macros inherit the quote markers from their invocation environment. Nothing you can do about that. (Too late to choose another language without starting over.) A better choice on the quote phrase is a possibility, but it would be a pita to implement. Still, it would be useful to bite the bullet and do it. Two character sequences for open and close would massively improve the ambiguity, and likely remove much of the need for those quadrigraphs. Without that, just use quadrigraphs. They're uglier than all get-out, but there's no ambiguity and no issue with stuff getting evaled too many or too few times. Or things being "out of balance." Ambiguity is worse than uglitude. That's why my macro generators "quadrifies" most all the supplied text before inserting it into AC_XXX() macro arguments. Probably, for the long run, the better choice is the restart-from- scratch option with a better choice of implementation languages. Just gotta figure out how to take advantage of the current body of work. If only it were simple.... *sigh*. - Bruce
