Re: printing wchar_t*

Jim Blandy
2006-04-14T17:18:14Z

On 4/14/06, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> I was thinking "print *ptr@@", by analogy to "print *ptr@5". Or we
> could use the existing @ N syntax. Right now we issue errors for
> anything less than one; so how about "print *ptr@0" for "print *ptr
> until you encounter a zero"?

I much prefer LVAL@@ to LVAL@0.

I don't think it's worth complicating the syntax for searching for a
zero terminator in order to allow one to search for an arbitrary
terminator. I think that will require more typing in the much more
common case, and there are other ways to serve the need to search for
arbitrary terminators.