--- arcadi shehter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Luke Palmer writes:
>
> >
> > As far as the syntax, the () and {} don't make a lot of sense with
> > regard to the rest of the language. We could either utilize the
> > string/numeric context distinction that already exists in {} and
> []
> > for subscripting, or we could always use () in analog to $().
> >
> > I'd like to have that dollar in there somewhere, actually.
> >
> > "The value in hex is \Fx$( expression )."
> >
> > Or something. That is kinda clunky, though. Maybe just a
> > stringification adverb, albeit verbose (but more versatile):
> >
> > "The value in hex is $( expression where format('x') )"
> >
> > No, I actually think that should be a property. In fact, one that
> has
> > been discussed before:
> >
> > "The value in hex is $( expression but formatted('x') )"
> >
> > That's actually my favorite so far.
> >
> but maybe cleaner way is to have a predefined function which can be
> passed modifyers
>
How about a pre- or user- defined function that just does sprintf?
"The values are $( sprintflike($format-string, @values))"
Now, if you want to talk about the cool amazing formatting syntax
you've conceived for sprintf replacement, that's fine. But I'm getting
that warm cozeny feeling that this is burning unnecessary listmips.
(Note: In the spirit of the "regex as generator" discussion of a few
months back, I'd love to hear about a rule [production?] based approach
to output formatting...)
=Austin
