Re: [TCLCORE] [Ext] Prototype Implementation of TIP 672 - $(expr) Syntax

[Zaumseil R. <RZa...@kk...>]

Hello

I currently do not see the benefit of this proposal, except some char less to type.
IMHO expr has some problems or room for enhancements:

  1.  Double evaluation of arguments

Could be solved with a new command with only 1 argument

  1.  Returns only one value

See p.e. tip 647 syntax

  1.  Access to tcl-variables with $-syntax

This would require a new expression parser

  1.  Anything else?

Do the tip 672 solve one of these points?


Regards
rene

Von: EricT <tw...@gm...>
Gesendet: Freitag, 17. Oktober 2025 23:22
An: tcl...@li...
Cc: et...@ro...
Betreff: [Ext] [TCLCORE] Prototype Implementation of TIP 672 - $(expr) Syntax

Hello Tcl Core Team,

I have developed a working prototype implementation of TIP 672, which adds the $(expression) syntax as a more intuitive alternative to [expr {expression}].

Repository: https://github.com/rocketship88/tcl-tip-672-prototype

The implementation is minimal, modifying only two files (tclParse.c and tclNamesp.c) with approximately 100 lines of changes. The key modification converts the existing two-way branch in Tcl_ParseVarName to a three-way branch, with the new path handling $(...) by creating a synthetic [expr {...}] command string.

Key Accomplishments:

Full bytecode compilation: The synthetic string approach integrates seamlessly with the existing compiler, producing identical optimized bytecode as [expr {...}]. The disassembler output (shown in the README) demonstrates efficient variable loading with no runtime parsing overhead.

Proven approach: Jim Tcl has used this syntax successfully for years

Comprehensive testing: Works correctly with string interpolation, variable scoping, error handling, and interactive mode

Known Limitations:

Memory leak: The synthetic string is allocated but not tracked for cleanup in Tcl_FreeParse. This requires core team guidance on the preferred solution (modify Tcl_Parse structure vs. thread-local tracking).

Error messages: Currently show the synthetic command rather than the original $(...) syntax, though this is arguably helpful for debugging.

Questions for the Team:

What is the preferred approach for tracking synthetic strings for cleanup?
Is this prototype architecture acceptable for Tcl 9.x?
Are there concerns with the synthetic string approach that I should address?

The complete implementation with side-by-side diffs is available in the repository. I'm happy to refine the code based on your feedback and would appreciate any guidance on moving this forward.

Best regards,
Eric