On 11 Aug 2005 09:21:41 +0200, Rafal Bisingier wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 05:09:26PM +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote: > > On 09Aug2005 11:16, Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > | On 09 Aug 2005 08:47:10 +0200, Rafal Bisingier wrote: > > | > I personaly don't like perl's string operators (eq, ne, etc.) > > | > > | Is it because of "perl" or because of "eq", "ne" names? These names are > > | also tcl's expr operators, and you may find them in the test(1) man page. > > > > Where they are conveniently swapped in application. The "-lt" etc are > > numeric operators in test(1), because = and != are already taken for > > lexical comparison. > > That's another reason to not use this silly notation... ;-)
I am not sure whether this discussion is technical still. If you perform a Google search for '"programming language" eq ne le lt ge gt' you will find a dozen or two of languages. People use these names and know what they mean. If we are to have two sets of comparison operators (that your patch seems to do), then using different names would be silly. :) In any way, I am against to start to add the elements of a scripting language (inlcuding string and integer concepts) before 2.6 is out. There are already several ways to achieve what this Compare patch does. Additionally, I didn't hear users requesting this functionality. It seems you don't need it yourself, you wrote: > I need a tool to check if some settings was set before and act > acordingly (eg. I need to check if a variable was set before, to not > overwrite it, or check the value of a variable and load apropriate > config file). I.e. you need something like these Test conditions: (IsEnvSet var_name) that is false if the value is unset or "", or/and (case insensitive): (MatchEnv var_name pattern) I am not against adding one or another such condition. Regards, Mikhael.
