Re: printing wchar_t*

Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-04-14T14:53:12Z

On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 05:47:06PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> No, that's not what I had in mind. I thought about a command which
> will set the value of the delimiter, with zero being the default.
> Then just use the same syntax as what you had in mind for
> zero-delimited arrays.
>
> Does this make sense?

It seems like something which would be more useful in the expression
than as a global state, but on the other hand, I already made the point
that this wouldn't be frequently used. I wouldn't object to such a
variable (although I probably wouldn't implement it, either).

> > I was thinking "print *ptr@@", by analogy to "print *ptr@5".
>
> Looks good to me.

I was going to suggest *ptr@0 again, but I've remembered that these
actually take expressions, not just integers. So @@ sounds good
to me, unless anyone knows a language where we can get away with using
@ for artificial arrays, but can't steal @@ also.

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery