From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11071 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2009 10:06:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 10993 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Dec 2009 10:06:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:06:03 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4ECB2BAC5C; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:06:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id sNwRY4QxKyPL; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:06:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F8EB2BABA1; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:06:01 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DED37F58FB; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:05:58 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:06:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tom Tromey Cc: Hui Zhu , Michael Snyder , gdb-patches ml Subject: Re: [RFC] Let "gcore" command accept a suffix argument Message-ID: <20091211100558.GA7125@adacore.com> References: <20091130162246.GE4034@adacore.com> <4B141157.3070709@vmware.com> <20091130185341.GI4034@adacore.com> <4B141469.5030402@vmware.com> <20091130190619.GJ4034@adacore.com> <4B1428F0.7090608@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-12/txt/msg00160.txt.bz2 > Or you could try to introduce syntax allowing arbitrary expressions. > One idea that comes to mind is to reuse some code and make eval work > like printf: > > eval "echo %s %d", $foo, $bar + 87 > > Now that I write it that seems weird :-) I don't think it seems weird. I find this pretty nice, and since we already have printf, I wonder how hard it would be to implement this? -- Joel