On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 19:31:43 +0100, tors...@robitzki.de wrote:
> Currently, the Code that evaluates the ${}-Syntax only evaluates the key, if
> the key is not an empty string:
>
> const char* cmCommandArgumentParserHelper::ExpandSpecialVariable(
> const char* key, const char* var)
> {
>
On 1/22/19 1:31 PM, tors...@robitzki.de wrote:
> Currently, the Code that evaluates the ${}-Syntax only evaluates the key
>
> const char* cmCommandArgumentParserHelper::ExpandSpecialVariable(
That's the pre-CMP0053 impl.
See cmMakefile::ExpandVariablesInStringNew for the modern impl.
Only with
On 1/22/19 10:55 AM, Marc CHEVRIER wrote:
> What about introducing a syntax similar to the version comparison:
>
> * LENGTH_EQUAL
> * LENGTH_GREATER
> * LENGTH_LOWER
> * etc…
>
> To use it:
> if (my_list LENGTH_EQUAL 1)
> # do my stuff
> endif()
That's where this thread started.
I like some syntax that looks like $LEN{}.
I would love to keep the $...{ syntax open for future exentsion such
as easy target property set/get ( $[prop_name]{target} ) . This seems
to be okay as $ENV, and $CACHE only work on variables, so therefore
adding $LEN that also only works on variables
I am not convince that the proposed syntax is a good idea because it introduce
a new syntax just to solve one action on a list.
What about introducing a syntax similar to the version comparison:
• LENGTH_EQUAL
• LENGTH_GREATER
• LENGTH_LOWER
• etc…
To use it:
if (my_list LENGTH_EQUAL 1)
# do
> Am 22.01.2019 um 16:37 schrieb Brad King :
>
> On 1/22/19 10:28 AM, tors...@robitzki.de wrote:
>> With `$CACHE{VAR}` and `$ENV{VAR}` we already have the syntax for calling a
>> „function“.
>
> No, there is no obvious way to pass arguments, handle nested quoting, etc.
Jep, you are right.
On 1/22/19 10:28 AM, tors...@robitzki.de wrote:
> With `$CACHE{VAR}` and `$ENV{VAR}` we already have the syntax for calling a
> „function“.
No, there is no obvious way to pass arguments, handle nested quoting, etc.
The language was not designed for that. That is a big can of worms I'd rather
> Am 22.01.2019 um 13:33 schrieb Brad King :
>
> On 1/22/19 7:09 AM, tors...@robitzki.de wrote:
>
>> How about adding the ability to add such function? Like:
>>
>> procedure(LIST_LENGTH list)
>> list(LENGTH list length)
>> return(${length})
>> endprocedure()
>
> We don't have a syntax for
On 1/22/19 7:40 AM, Daniel Franke wrote:
> Whats about a Syntax like
>
> ${list::LENGTH}
That would require dispatch after matching `${VAR}` syntax, and
that lookup is one of the hottest paths according to profiling.
We already have $ENV{} and $CACHE{} syntax.
-Brad
--
Powered by
On 1/22/19 7:09 AM, tors...@robitzki.de wrote:
>> Am 22.01.2019 um 12:42 schrieb Brad King:
>> Rather than a special `if` syntax, perhaps we could introduce an
>> explicit `$LIST_LENGTH{mylist}` syntax. One would need to experiment
>> to see if modifying the variable expansion parser (under
On 1/22/19 3:08 AM, tors...@robitzki.de wrote:
> three use cases:
>
> - Checking for empty lists (I’ve showed him that this can be done
> by a string compare).
> - Checking for lists having more than 1 entry
> - Checking for equal size of two lists. For example, if you want
> to pass pairs or
Hi Brad,
> Am 14.01.2019 um 12:44 schrieb Brad King :
>
> I've almost never needed to test the length of a list in CMake
> code. It's not very common in my experience. What is your
> customer trying to do?
Sorry for the late response! I’ve asked him. Mainly, he has three use cases:
-
12 matches
Mail list logo
