Re: autotools

["Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net>]

Hi,

me:
> > There are two old forms of for-loops:
Volker Kuhlmann:
> Current bash lists it as valid syntax, so it's not "old".

"Old" in the sense of not the "new"
  for (( expr1 ; expr2 ; expr3 )) ; do list ; done
"Old" in the sense of being mentioned by S.R.Bourne
in his book "The UNIX System".


> Read the man bash again.

I read in my man 1 bash:
  for name [ in word ] ; do list ; done
Not:
  for name [ in [ word ] ] ; do list ; done

> "If the expansion of the items following in results in an empty
>  list, no commands are executed, and the return status is 0."

So meanwhile it is declared an intended feature indeed.
Nevertheless ./configure created by autotools
should rather not rely on such a border case.

autotools claims to enable portability to a wide
range of existing systems. I.e. systems not as they
are specified today, but as they are installed in
reality.
Two elder Linux plus one (probably young) Solaris
constitute enough existence to make this a bug
in autotools resp. in our autotools configuration.


Well, as said, we got our reasons to stick with
autotools. Wether it lets us look stupid from time
to time or not. Probably we deserve it. :))


Have a nice day :)

Thomas