Re: Quite old patch adding new Test condition
On 12 Aug 2005 08:45:07 +, Mikhael Goikhman 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: (MatchEnv var_name pattern) It was easy to implement, so I just added these Test conditions. Any comments are welcome. Regards, Mikhael.
Re: Quite old patch adding new Test condition
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 08:45:07AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote: 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. I know about it. I had to learn in the past about 10 different programming languages, but I still think this kind of operators makes only a mess. ;-) People use these names and know what they mean. My point is not the problem with the meaning (at least not the biggest one), but difficulty in telling apart operators from compared values (eg. a comparision like this equal ne notequal instead of this equal != notequal). This is only my point of view, but I will defend it as long as I can... ;-) If we are to have two sets of comparison operators (that your patch seems to do), then using different names would be silly. :) I don't need 2 sets of operators. I make it this way because it was simple to do, nothing more. I needed only the integer part. But I can disagree than with 2 sets of operators it'd be extremely silly to use different names (inventing a wheel for the second time was not my point). ;-) 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. Well, I tried to make it as flexible as I can, but maybe that was not the best idea ;-) Your solution is equaly good for me and if it makes into fvwm, then it would be even better. ;-) -- Rafal Bisingier pgpHi2eSyKxR2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Quite old patch adding new Test condition
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 11:36:51AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote: On 12 Aug 2005 08:45:07 +, Mikhael Goikhman 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: (MatchEnv var_name pattern) It was easy to implement, so I just added these Test conditions. Any comments are welcome. I can say only one thing: THANK YOU. :-) -- Rafal Bisingier pgpVx869tP3qL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Quite old patch adding new Test condition
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. -- Cameron Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] DoD#743 http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/ What I want is Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. - Charles DickensJohn Huffam 1812-1870 Hard Times [1854]
Re: Quite old patch adding new Test condition
I've thought Mikhael will comment on this and I didn't make a mistake... ;-) On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 10:59:16AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote: On 08 Aug 2005 11:27:16 +0200, Rafal Bisingier wrote: This patch ads new test-condition to the Test function named Compare. With it one can do simple comparisions of numbers or strigs without using PipeRead and shell subprocesses. This could be very handy in conditional configuration (a simple if-else is possible with it). I don't really like this verbose syntax: Test (Compare string 1 strcmp string 2) DoSomething The following syntax is better: Compare (string 1 eq string 2) DoSomething Well, this syntax is strightly derived from existing syntax and this is the only reason of it's form. Perl's operators (eq, ne, lt, gt, le, ge and cmp) are string equivalents of numerical operators (==, !=, , , =, =, ). Not sure there is a need for 2 sets of operators rather than just string operations, but ok. I need it only for integer comparision, so didn't take much care about string operations. I've added strcmp only for completness and because it was easy to do ;-) I personaly don't like perl's string operators (eq, ne, etc.) and I don't see any reason to have le, lt, ge and gt operators other than completness. I think much more useful would be case insensitive comparision, but that's only my point of view. Having separate command for this is not really a problem, just like we have separate command for TestRc. And if already do this, then simply: If (string 1 eq string 2) DoSomething When I made this patch I wanted it to make as little changes to fvwm source as possible and make the patch as simple as I only can in the hope that this can help in merging it into fvwm... But then we had another similar If patch by Scott, IIRC. Yes, there is a patch from Scott adding a complete if-elseif-else-endif syntax, but it's far more bigger, much more complicated and adds completely new syntax. From the other side Scott's patch is more functional and probably simpler to use in complicated configuration. I don't care which patch can be included into fvwm now (it could be even both of them), I just wanted to have some kind of conditional syntax aviable in fvwm config file without the need of external commands run by PipeRead. PS. Scott's patch was planed to be included after 2.6 release, but I don't think 2.6 will came out in near future and I need this kind of functionality right now (or more precisely I need it since october'04 ;-) -- Greetings Rafal Bisingier pgp1cDPB3n3tw.pgp Description: PGP signature
