Re: [Automake-NG] [PATCH 2/2] [ng] vartypos: update news file

[Akim Demaille]

Le 7 juin 2012 à 12:01, Stefano Lattarini a écrit :

>> I understand why this is nice looking (to use copy_LDADD), but
>> really, wouldn't it be saner to just some other name?  Say
>> copy_ldadd.
>> 
> Probably yes, but coreutils is actually using $(copy_LDADD) today, and
> I'd like to avoid forcing too much code churn on our client packages
> whenever possible,

Frankly, this is a non-issue.  Jim writes Perl substitution patterns
the morning when he wakes up, just to warm up.

> at least when it is (like in this case) easy and
> natural to do so.  Moreover, as I wrote in the commit message of the
> first patch:
> 
>    Such a whitelisting capability is a good idea even regardless this
>    motivation, since it helps enforcing the Autotools- philosophy
>    "the user is always right" (as long as he is explicit enough).
> 
> Don't you agree with my rationales?

I'm not sure I do actually.  Yes, I do use WERROR_CPPFLAGS and
such variable names, so I would have to fix some of my variables
if this were to be enforced.

Yet, much of the value of Automake comes from its strong
reliance on purpose conventions, especially naming conventions.
So, imvho, allowing exceptions in these conventions is actually
making Automake statements harder to read.  They become dependent
on the context.

Instead of a declaration statement (so dependency on the
context), I would prefer to see another naming convention be used.

Actually, it's almost a pity that _ was used, we could have
requested

        bin_PROGRAMS = mv
        mv/CPPFLAGS = -DFOO

or

        mv.CPPFLAGS = -DFOO

and keep _ for copy_CPPFLAGS.  (I find the affiliation more
explicit with . or / than with _.)

Maybe the convention could be simply in the use of upper case
instead of lowercase?

        mv_CPPFLAGS = COPY_CPPFLAGS

?

Unless you are ready for mv.CPPFLAGS :)  I am.