> > Yuk!  I don't care what people say, but *THAT* is hideous!  Nothing against
> > the original poster...

> No offense taken.  This example was a bit contrived, but there are
> some "standard" things that are uglier.

> Portability is not pretty.  Esp. if you try to run accross things varying
> from Ancient to modern, and that's just Unix.

Another way than using autoconf is to isolate system
dependent stuff in as few files as possible and just link in
the right set of files from a directory of system config
files.  I find it easier to deal with than deeply nested
#ifdef .. #endif code. It took me just a few minutes to
figure out what to do to port the Icon interpreter+compiler
suite to NetBSD.  For years I have been porting the Rand
editor (as hacked by Dave Yost) to every system I use.
There are many other programs that maintain system dependent
config files.  Neither style is pretty but so it goes.

> The winnage with autoconf is that tests are specific to a feature or
> behavior and that the tests are done automatically for a given
> system, so new ports are much easier.

Yes, this is a win but you can also do that in system dependent
files that get linked in.  You know, what would be neat is
a tool like autoconf that generates the right set of files.

Bakul