GNU bug report logs - #68412
[PATCH] scripts: edit: Accept generic formatting parameter.

Previous Next

Full log

Message #26 received at 68412 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 68412 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bug#68412] [PATCH v2] scripts: edit: Accept generic formatting
 parameter.
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2024 23:22:23 +0100

Hi,

Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com> skribis:

>> Second, I think that using markers that can be interpreted by Bash
>> shell can lead to confusion.  For instance,

[...]

>> $ export GUIX_EDITOR_LOCATION_FORMAT="--line=${LINE} ${FILE}"
>> $ echo $GUIX_EDITOR_LOCATION_FORMAT
>> --line=foo bar
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>> 
>> Well, simple quote versus double quote appears to me subtle.
>> 
>> Since it is an hard text replacement, why not remove $ and just have
>> the placeholder {LINE} or {FILE}?  Or <LINE> and <FILE>?  Or whatever
>> that is not interpreted by common shells.
> Because it is only a hard text replacement *for now*.  We might find
> that there's merit to having gash interpret these later on.  I know
> there's like fifty conventions for formatting strings and we have to
> pick one, but I'd like to think that this isn't just a pointless
> exercise in forward compatibility.

It’s true that someone not well versed in shell or someone distracted
could easily find themselves having ${LINE} and ${FILE} shell-expanded
even though we precisely don’t want that.

One way out would be to use a different syntax, say, %LINE% and %FILE%.
With the syntax clearly different from shell variables, we’d avoid those
easy mistakes.

WDYT?

Ludo’.

Previous Next

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