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

[Paul Eggert <eggert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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