Dear Tom, In message <20211021122325.GX7964@bill-the-cat> you wrote: > > Do you have any other feedback on the entire rest of the series?
I already wrote that I support the concept, and the few nit I saw have been fixed, I think. Except this unneeded breaking of backward compatibility. > Because I'm not sure the benefit of "we can still support '+' at the end > of a variable name, if anyone uses that" outweighs "we can more easily > append variables in constructing our environment without relying on > uncommon operators". We introduce a new feature here. Defining an append operator is a convenience thing. It could probably also solved using the preprocessor, likely in a more ugly way. In any case, the feature is new, and the operator is new. For the implementation it does not matter if we define this operator as "+=" or '=+" or "=." or something else. the only difference is that any ioperator starting with an equal sign is inherently backward compatible without need for arbitrary new restrictions. > To me "=+" as the append syntax is worse than "no > + at the end of your variables". In which way is it worse? For esthetic reasons? I confirm that '+=' looks better. But '+=" is technically broken. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de Brain: an apparatus with which we think we think. - Ambrose Bierce