Re: patch: libm4.m4

[Akim Demaille <akim at epita dot fr>]

| : | +# m4_sequence( FIRST, LAST, opt FORMAT, opt INCREMENT )
| : | +# --------------------------------------------------
| : 
| : I prefer m4_for better.  Indeed, adding support for an increment would
| : be nice.  Why do you want a new macro instead of just m4_for?
| 
| m4_for() is great for incremental for-loops, and should be preferred where
| possible because of the smaller processing overhead.  m4_sequence() is a
| completely different tool...

My point is I don't see any difference with

m4_for([i], 1, 10, 1, [m4_format([%d], [i])])

and

m4_sequence(1, 10, [%d], 1)

I agree it is smaller, but is this a win?  libm4 should probably
remain a small set of very useful macros, and m4_sequence, currently,
doesn't seem to fit with this definition.

Reusability of m4_sequence looks unlikely, but I may well be
completely wrong.  I just need to be convinced we really need
something like m4_sequence instead of an m4_for extended with an
increment.

        Akim