Hi,
This change sounds nice to me. Just a simple remark, why changing the
syntax? set THIS = THAT is nice and we could keep it as syntactic sugar,
at least for backward compatibility (and maybe allow both syntaxes)...
++
Sam.
David Baelde wrote:
> Hi devs & users,
>
> I have a pending commit changing the treatment of settings in script
> files. I'd like to discuss a bit about the new choices before
> commiting -- also, I'll be away during the week-end, so I wouldn't be
> here to fix my mistakes if there are any.
>
> Currently, settings are done via "set THIS = THAT", only at the
> beginning of a script (after inclusion expansion) and where THAT must
> be a ground value. It is impossible for example to use argv(1),
> system("bla") or even 1+1.
>
> I propose to add a set() function to the API (of type (string,
> 'a)->unit where 'a is bool, int, float, string or [string]). The
> syntax would then become set("THIS",THAT) with quotes around THIS, but
> full flexibility on what THAT can be. And of course, this can now be
> done at any point in the execution of the script.
>
> (Note that it also becomes possible to change a setting dynamically.
> This side effect is not so useful. For most settings, this could be
> misleading since a runtime change would at best have no effect, and at
> worse lead to inconsistencies. I didn't see much settings that could
> be dynamically changed: only tag.encodings. Slight modifications could
> allow a dynamic modification for root.max_latency and root.sync. I
> don't know about mpd/harbor/log stuff.)
>
> What do you think ? Do you like the syntax, the new possibilities ?
> Are you afraid of the side effects ? I think it'd be good to do the
> change now.
