GNU bug report logs - #54227
29.0.50; [PATCH] Inconsistencies with Eshell variable interpolation

Previous Next

Full log

Message #40 received at 54227 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 54227 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#54227: 29.0.50; [PATCH] Inconsistencies with Eshell variable
 interpolation
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2022 19:38:12 -0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 3/7/2022 4:52 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>
>> Cc: 54227 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2022 13:44:24 -0800
>>
>> +If @var{i} is a non-numeric value, expand to the value associated with
>> +the key @code{"i"}. For example, if @var{var} is @samp{(("dog"
> 
> Why did you need quotes in "i"?

That was my attempt to indicate that this:

  $foo[bar]

means (cdr (assoc "bar" foo)), not (cdr (assoc 'bar foo)) or (cdr (assoc 
bar foo)). Hopefully that's an ok way to express that. That said, this 
means the same thing too:

  $foo["bar"]

so it's not quite as simple as wrapping quotes around the subscript. 
This seemed like the simplest way to express the general idea, but it 
might be more technically correct to say something like, "... expand to 
the value associated with @var{i}'s value as a string." That wording is 
pretty confusing to me though...
> Also, it's suppoed to be @var{i}, as in the other alternatives.

Thanks, fixed.

>> +@item anything else
>> +Raises an error.
> 
> We say "Signals an error".

Fixed there, and in the entry below about the '$#foo' syntax.

[0001-Improve-wording-of-Eshell-variable-interpolation-cod.patch (text/plain, attachment)]

[0002-Support-applying-indices-to-more-Eshell-dollar-expan.patch (text/plain, attachment)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.