-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30.9k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
gh-89886: Use Autoconf quadrigraphs where appropriate #105226
gh-89886: Use Autoconf quadrigraphs where appropriate #105226
Conversation
erlend-aasland
commented
Jun 2, 2023
•
edited by bedevere-bot
Loading
edited by bedevere-bot
- Issue: Improve and simplify configure.ac checks #89886
@corona10 are you ok with this? In my editor (Vim), this fix is very helpful, not specifically because of the highlighting, but also because it enables Vim to correctly recognise closing parentheses and brackets. This makes hacking Autoconf way easier, since I can quickly verify opening/closing brackets and parentheses using the |
Yeah yeah, I understood what you intended. I have the same issue with my vim editor. |
I don't think we need to maintain our own Autoconf docs; the GNU Autoconf docs are well written and full of good examples. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The code correctly works as expected. %:@include
is surprising and looks specific to autotools, whereas C uses #include
. The benefit is to fix syntax highlight? I'm not convinced that it's worth it.
@corona10 are you ok with this? In my editor (Vim), this fix is very helpful, not specifically because of the highlighting, but also because it enables Vim to correctly recognise closing parentheses and brackets. This makes hacking Autoconf way easier, since I can quickly verify opening/closing brackets and parentheses using the % char.
Well, that was just my opinion. Now it's up to you. You're way more active on changing configure than me :-)
Thanks for you input. I'll abide with Dong-hee's final word on this :) I won't repeat my arguments as to why I think this is worth it (see #105226 (comment)), but (surprise, surprise) I still would like to land this :) An alternative could be to make sure strings including |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Okay, let's go.
From my conservative view it is +0.5.. but doing something is always better than doing nothing.
Someone may complain but soon adapt to a new convention.
As I said in #105226 (comment), there is already precedent for using quadrigraphs in Thanks, both! |
Thanks @erlend-aasland for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.12. |
Sorry @erlend-aasland, I had trouble checking out the |
GH-105423 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.12 branch. |