Re: [RFC] Proposal to re-think binary file handling

[Ethan M. <merritt@u.washington.edu>]

On Wednesday 03 December 2008 09:28:18 Ralf Juengling wrote:
> > Having looked at the code, I think currently it would be easier to
> > store a single string for later interpretation than it would be to
> > store a variable number of separate dimensions.  But I'm proposing
> > to throw out the current code anyhow, so that argument doesn't have
> > much weight.
> 
> I have a slight preference for not making it a string. On a second
> thought a comma might not be such a good choice for separator, though. 
> The comma is also used to separate different lines in a single plot
> command, so there is potential for ambiguity.
> 
> I vote for ':' instead, like
> 
> array=4:23:100
> 
> but not
> 
> array=[4:23:100]
> 
> as you initially suggested.
> 
> Ralf
> 

Please have a look at the patch now attached to Bug #2378535
 https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2378535&group_id=2055&atid=102055

The best I have come up with is to replace 
   array=5x10
with
   array=(5,10)

That cleans up the parsing, and also allows you to use variables and expressions: 
   array=(A, 2+NVAR)

A bare comma with no parentheses would not work, because it makes the following
plot command ambiguous:

   plot foo binary array=5,baz    # Is baz a second dimension or a second graph?

Colon is already in use to separate fields within a record, and may exist in the
same specification as an array:

   record=(5,10):2:4


	thanks for your feedback,

		Ethan


-- 
Ethan A Merritt