Re: Convensions for NO_<feature> instead of HAVE_<feature>?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On 11/07/11 22:18, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
> Are there any conventions for what to call such feature macros

No, but I suggest using LACK_FEATURE,
as "lack" means the opposite of "have",
whereas the suggestions you gave do not
have that property (i.e., they lack
that property :-).

_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@xxxxxxx
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf


[GCC Help]     [Kernel Discussion]     [RPM Discussion]     [Red Hat Development]     [Yosemite News]     [USB]     [Samba]

Add to Google Powered by Linux