Re: [TCLCORE] TIP 282 status

[avl <av...@lo...>]

Florent Merlet <pos...@fl...> wrote:
> > Speaking of new magic symbols, say "#":
> >   expr {#var = 9} and also expr {#sin(0) = 9}
> > might work. Any suggestions for a better symbol than "#"?
> $ ?
I wrote "new magic symbol", not re-adapting an existing one.
"$" is just wrong here in that it already means: pick the
value of that variable, rather than use this variable.

> a type  ?
> expr {int sin(0) = 9}
Ways too far fetched for now. We just don't have types at
script level.

> reverse the notation ?
> expr {= sin(0) 9}
nope

> : ?
> expr {:sin(0) = 9}
expr {$cond ? :sin(0)=42 : :sin(1)=54} ... nope


Peter S <pet...@gm...> wrote:
> And besides, it's entirely unnecessary, as
>     expr { {sin\(0)} = 1 }
> ...should work fine already.
for some strange definition of "fine". ;-)

% expr { {sin\(0)} = 1 }    ;# <-- shell with TIP-282
1
% parray sin\\
sin\(0) = 1



"Dipl. Ing. Sergey G. Brester" <se...@us...> wrote:
> > Tcl's expressions are still parsed from left to right. You
> > cannot change the parsing syntax of terms based on operands
> > found lateron.
> Whats about token-char ")" in tcl variables substitution (by tokenize).
The topic was expr here, not how "set" interpretes its first argument
nor how the "..." within ${...} gets interpreted as var or array.

> > One possible approach would be principally accepting barewords
> Agree. That makes IMHO more sense as you suggestion below
But it cannot be extended to arrays that way.

> But would a pity, something like pointing resolvable varnames would be
> then impossible: 
> expr {$varname = (...)} 

Not necessarily. Operator "=" accepting a bareword does not exclude
it from also accepting expressions evaluating to varnames.
Whether it is something we *want* is an entirely different question
and I'd answer it with a "no", myself.

> > Speaking of new magic symbols, say "#":
> > expr {#var = 9} and also expr {#sin(0) = 9}
> > might work. Any suggestions for a better symbol than "#"?
> As already said, for me it is extremely ambiguous.

You might not like it, but it's not ambiguous in its
technical sense.