From: Hans-Bernhard B. <br...@ph...> - 2004-07-08 10:34:23
|
On Sun, 4 Jul 2004, Ethan A Merritt wrote: [3 patches already in] Ethan: please close those patches in the patch tracker, then (including #482108). > I also have some largish patches corresponding to implementations > of several different flavors of user-accessible string variables. > These have been discussed off and on over the last year or so, > but I never sensed a real consensus as to which approach was > best. I think that means we'll need a summary of their differences to start off that discussion again. As far as I remember, there were several open issues we never decided upon conclusively: 1) how deep down into the expression evaluator do we put them, i.e. do we only need string-valued variables controlled by a 'set' or 'let' command of their own, or should 'string' become a third native type of expression, in addition to integer and complex, meaning that we could have string operators, string arguments and results in both internal and user-defined functions? 2) How to recognize usage of string variables in existing commands that currently rely on having "" or '' around strings? 3) As a follow-up to 2), how to expand variables into strings? Bash-like $var, or C-like sprintf() style? $ already being used for at least two entirely unrelated things in gnuplot, I would prefer the latter. > So -- who is next out of the gate? No takers, it seems. I take that to mean we can proceed to the "go through all entries in the SF.net patch tracker" stage. Also known as "fire at will". Except that Patches already assigned to someone should be left to that person. All discussion in this mailing list, please --- the patch tracker itself is too cumbersome for that. -- Hans-Bernhard Broeker (br...@ph...) Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain. |