[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co
From: |
Patrick Welche |
Subject: |
Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co |
Date: |
Mon, 28 May 2007 18:19:59 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-03-22) |
On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 10:55:45AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Patrick Welche on 5/28/2007 10:45 AM:
> > (Also removes what appear to be spurious #( )
> >
> > - case $ac_cv_c_int$1_t in #(
> > - no|yes) ;; #(
> > + case $ac_cv_c_int$1_t in
> > + no|yes) ;;
>
> Sorry, but that is not spurious. It is a shell coding trick to make
> syntax highlighting detect balanced (), in spite of the unbalanced ) of
> portable case statements.
Fair enough! (serves me right for just using raw vi ;-) )
What do you think of the HAVE_ part?
Cheers,
Patrick
- AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co, Patrick Welche, 2007/05/28
- Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co, Eric Blake, 2007/05/28
- Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co,
Patrick Welche <=
- Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co, Stepan Kasal, 2007/05/28
- Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co, Patrick Welche, 2007/05/29
- Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co, Patrick Welche, 2007/05/29
- Message not available
- Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co, Patrick Welche, 2007/05/29
- Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co, Paul Eggert, 2007/05/29
- Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co, Stepan Kasal, 2007/05/30
- Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co, Patrick Welche, 2007/05/30
- Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co, Stepan Kasal, 2007/05/30
- Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co, Paul Eggert, 2007/05/30
- Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co, Stepan Kasal, 2007/05/30