Re: autoconf enhancement for Interix

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [replies can drop bug-autoconf] According to Martin Koeppe on 9/4/2007 10:01 AM: > > On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Eric Blake wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> [Adding gnulib: this thread started at >> http://thread.gmane.org/

Re: bootstrap update from coreutils

Jim Meyering wrote: > Remember the context: > Anyone using developer tools like autoconf, automake, cvs, gperf, etc., > is very likely also to have rsync installed. If you think so... rsync saves bandwidth, therefore I have no problem using it, as long as 'wget' is available as a fallback. 2007-

Re: HP C++ and gnulib string.h

Albert Chin wrote: > > I'm worried that more differences between the C and C++ compilers are > > found. It may be not only the location of , but also > > HAVE_DECL_STRRCHR, the presence of an uint32_t type, etc. > > Possibly. lftp-3.5.11, an ftp client which is more a mix of C/C++, > exposes more

Re: proposed renaming [Re: underscores in gnulib file names

Hi Jim, > >> m4/group-member.m4 > >> lib/group-member.c > >> lib/group-member.h > >> modules/group-member > >> > >> ... Do you find those confusing? > > > > Somewhat, yes. > > Surely you're exaggerating -- for the sake of argument? The confusion is not big. But here's where I would put d

proposed renaming [Re: underscores in gnulib file names

Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim Meyering wrote: >> It is not confusing to me that the group_member function >> has the following corresponding files in gnulib: >> >> m4/group-member.m4 >> lib/group-member.c >> lib/group-member.h >> modules/group-member >> >> ... Do you find th

Re: underscores in gnulib file names

Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > But still I'm glad that we have no file called '--fpending.c' :-) In fact, I've just removed the underscores in __fpending.[ch]: 2007-09-08 Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rename __fpending.c -> fpending.c and __fpending.h -> fpending.h

Re: underscores in gnulib file names

Jim Meyering wrote: > I could live with ".in.h". Good, thanks. > However, I fear that if we depend on an "ok" from the Emacs maintainers, > then neither "..h" nor ".in.h" will fly. Currently, no file name > in emacs contains more than one ".". That's my fear too: The Emacs 22.1 release still ha

Re: underscores in gnulib file names

Jim Meyering wrote: > It is not confusing to me that the group_member function > has the following corresponding files in gnulib: > > m4/group-member.m4 > lib/group-member.c > lib/group-member.h > modules/group-member > > ... Do you find those confusing? Somewhat, yes. > I've made an ef

Re: underscores in gnulib file names

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Jim Meyering on 9/8/2007 7:02 AM: > I find the "-" to be just as readable as "_", and easier to type. > It's not hard to make the association. I much prefer '-' over '_' in filenames, because I always enable case-insensitive tab completio

Re: underscores in gnulib file names

Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim Meyering wrote: >> I prefer ..h, too. Does anyone object? > > I can accept "..h", but I prefer ".in.h", so as to remind the substitution of > autoconf macros. > > You need to ask the Emacs maintainers whether they can accept file names with > two dots

Re: underscores in gnulib file names

Hi Bruno, Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It's not that bizarre, and it's been present in the GNU culture >> for a very long time. "-" is easier to type than "_", since >> the former is a single key-press and the latter usually requires two. >> Perhaps the fact that it is not as well k

Re: underscores in gnulib file names

Jim Meyering wrote: > I prefer ..h, too. Does anyone object? I can accept "..h", but I prefer ".in.h", so as to remind the substitution of autoconf macros. You need to ask the Emacs maintainers whether they can accept file names with two dots in them (DOS, VMS portability problems). Bruno

Re: underscores in gnulib file names

Paul Eggert wrote: > > How about the "..h" suffix, e.g., stdlib..h? Do we care enough > > about 8.3 limitations to worry about that? > > I don't think we do nowadays, no. Might some software get confused by > the "..h" extension? Emacs treats "..h" like ".h"; perhaps that's > good enough. kate

Re: underscores in gnulib file names

Hi Jim, > It's not that bizarre, and it's been present in the GNU culture > for a very long time. "-" is easier to type than "_", since > the former is a single key-press and the latter usually requires two. > Perhaps the fact that it is not as well known as it should be is > the reason there are