Re: Improved 'Parsing' of configure.in

[Rich Paul <rich-paul@rich-paul.net>]

Tom Tromey wrote:

I would be happy to provide whatever paperwork is needed.

> >>>>> "Rich" == Rich Paul <rich-paul@rich-paul.net> writes:
> 
> Rich> Basicly, the change is to run configure.in as a configure.in
> Rich> script ...  and merely remember what functions are called, and
> Rich> when.  The output is a configure program, just like you would
> Rich> get if you ran autoconf, plus, applnded, a list of macro calls
> Rich> that were made, along with what files were read.
> 
> This sounds like a basically good idea.  I agree it would be more
> reliable than what we do now.  I think eventually we'll do something
> like this.
> 
> Rich> If they would add me to the credits file I would appreciate it,
> Rich> but the code is public domain, and they would not be REQUIRED to
> Rich> do anything at all in order to use the ideas or code therein.
> 
> Even though it is public domain, I think we would need paperwork to
> incorporate it (though I am not sure).  However, I don't see this
> happening in the short term, and I don't think it would be too hard to
> reimplement, so maybe it isn't too important to get papers.