On Nov 14, 2009, at 3:26 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=1543850&group_id=557...
i don't know how well this works for with the new dollarg-expansion
code (within symbols, not only at the beginning). and anyhow it is unclear what "bla-$@-blu" really means.as for $$ being available in messages: i don't think this can easily be done the way things are right know.
and really, i don't think it is that important :-)
I think this never got included because it didn't play nice with
the new dollar arg expansion code.i remember doing tests and i vaguely remember that it worked. the only thing i could imagine is, that it might not apply cleanly anymore, since both the dollarg expansion code and the $@ code both touch the same lines. but then i wrote the current expansion code before the $@,$# things (http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=1405137&group_id=557... ), so i guess i might even have build on that code.
So this patch at this point serves as a
starting point for developing this.
it implements about 66% of your suggestion.
As for what "bla-$@-blu" means, it doesn't matter as long as $$,
$@, and $# are clearly defined.now what does that mean? if you implement anything, you have to make a clear definition of it (else youcouldn't express it in a language like C). you might not be aware of this fact, but you really do.
in many cases you get away with just implementing it (and a somewhat logical definition of whatever you implemented will turn out to be
there)now i did implement this and it turned out that i was wondering on
what "bla-$@-blu" should be explanded to.my experience showed me that it does matter.
i can think of 2 expansions and both make sense and both don't.
iirc, my final conclusion was that it would be best to not allow $@ expansion at all for dollsyms, but just as solitary $@ which will
always expand to a list.By bash rules, that would give you "bla-my list
of words-blu".
this doosn't say much. in bash you can quote and escape. you can write bash-code that will regard "bla-my list of words-blu" to be a list of 5 arguments and bash-code that sees it as a single
argument.this is exactly the question i asked; probably this was not so clear)
I think omitting something here because you don't think its useful is
not a good idea. Instead, I think $@ should always expand unless that
causes problems somewhere. That's the spirit of flexibility that
makes Pd good.
.hc
kill your television