From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26994 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2003 17:45:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 26979 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2003 17:45:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 5 Jan 2003 17:45:01 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h05HilJ19728; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 11:44:47 -0600 Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 17:45:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200301051744.h05HilJ19728@duracef.shout.net> To: drow@mvista.com Subject: Re: RFC: gdb_test_multiple Cc: ac131313@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00191.txt.bz2 > { } quoting in TCL completely disables expansion. Variables inside a > "proc name { args } { vars $here } are not expanded until the procedure > is called; similarly for the {} construct above. Ah. Gotcha. I am thinking like #define, when I really need to think like gnu make's "=" and ":=" (and sit down with the TCL book and really learn the silly language). > And that idiom is all over the testsuite, for readability > purposes; see $hex, etc. In fact I'm planning to use more of that idiom to incrementally build up -re strings that for those troublesome ptype tests. So I have to acquiesce to you -- whatever syntax you can get to work. Michael C