2009/11/14 IOhannes m zmölnig <zmoel...@iem.at>: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: >> >> >> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=1543850&group_id=55736&atid=478072 >> >> >> 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 "bl...@-blu" really means. >> >> as for $$ being available in messages: i don't think this can easily >> be done the way things are right know. >> >> and really, i don't think it is that important :-) >> >>> I think this never got included because it didn't play nice with the new >>> dollar arg expansion code. > > i remember doing tests and i vaguely remember that it worked. > the only thing i could imagine is, that it might not apply cleanly > anymore, since both the dollarg expansion code and the $@ code both > touch the same lines.
Haha, I have no idea if I ever publicized this or not, but I believe I got this applying to 0.42+ back in April... Haven't tested this since then but if it applies I'll add it to the tracker. Best Luke > but then i wrote the current expansion code before the $@,$# things > (http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=1405137&group_id=55736&atid=478072), > so i guess i might even have build on that code. > > >> So this patch at this point serves as a >>> starting point for developing this. > > it implements about 66% of your suggestion. > >> >>> As for what "bl...@-blu" means, it doesn't matter as long as $$, $@, 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 > "bl...@-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) > > gfmasd > IOhannes > > > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iEYEARECAAYFAkr/El8ACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvRZdwCgsbV3Eh85Nyw8cwqgFdeorNnx > UkMAoKTGZ0NOEzu/nKyZ+gJ//8vnqx7M > =S6J0 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > Pd-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >
dollargcargv-pd-0.42-4.patch
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list