From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21161 invoked by alias); 7 Dec 2002 01:17:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 21153 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2002 01:17:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Dec 2002 01:17:42 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18KVTW-0002CY-00; Fri, 06 Dec 2002 21:17:54 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18KTbi-0005ZH-00; Fri, 06 Dec 2002 20:18:14 -0500 Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 17:17:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Fernando Nasser Cc: Richard Sharpe , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Processing of convenience variables for scripts ... Message-ID: <20021207011814.GB21192@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Fernando Nasser , Richard Sharpe , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <3DF12A6B.1050006@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3DF12A6B.1050006@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00147.txt.bz2 On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 05:53:31PM -0500, Fernando Nasser wrote: > Richard Sharpe wrote:> On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Fernando Nasser wrote: > > > > > >>Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > >> > >>>That said, I'm not worried about implementing this as much as I am > >>>designing what it "ought" to look like. > >>> > >> > >>For me just: > >> > >>eval command args... ${something} more args... > >> > >>where the value of ${something} is blah > >> > >>causes the following command to be executed > >> > >>command args... blahh more args... > >> > >> > >>eval just expands the variable to create the real command to be excuted > >>and calls execute_command() with it. > > > > > >This sounds like a simple short-term solution while we wait on a more > >general method where all commands can take expressions of any type :-) > > > > Why we would want that? Are you thinking of any specific example where > this could be useful? Well, it seems much more logical to me... right now some commands accept $var and some don't. The inconsistency gets on my nerves when I hit it. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer