On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 03:41:24AM +0100, Julian Seward wrote:
> On Saturday 17 November 2007 01:13, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
> > That sounds ok. In summary:
> >
> > --log-file=<pattern>
>
> That sounds good to me. With patterns
>
> %p process ID
> %q(VAR) contents of $VAR
>
> I would prefer to use ( ) instead of { } around VAR. { and }
> interact really badly with shells and are generally a pain to
> work with.
>
oh, and ( ) do not interact badly with shells, huh? ;)
apart from that, { } is perfectly fine as long as there is no comma in
between.
last but not least, { } just feels more "natural" in scripting context.
only makefiles use $() for variable expansion, but there it has some
more meanings, too.
--
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please!
--
Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Valgrind-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-developers
