Hi Wolfgang, On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 10:20, Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote: > > Dear Simon, > > In message > <capnjgz1p6uerhdsgbzgmxfhgv7uhrfa1ufvohggd0-136ot...@mail.gmail.com> you > wrote: > > > > But how do we handle this? > > > > var+=fred > > > > Is this appending to var or assigning to var+ ? > > It is assigning to "var+".
er... > > > > var++=fred > > > > is unambiguous but very confusing. I think it would be better to disallow + > > It's neither unambiguous nor confusing. It is assigning to "var++". What? Can you read that again? > > > I think we should not change what is old and might be in use. > > It is much easier to change what is new and can be defined at will. > > If we define for example that "<name>=+<value>" appends, then we can > also define our own escape rules, for example: > > var=fred assigns > var=+fred appends "fred" > var=\+fred assignes the value "+fred" > var=++fred appends "+fred" I don't like that at all. It requires an escape for a common case and is very confusing. Since people will be converting their out-of-tree scripts anyway, they can check for this sort of madness at the time. There should be no problem. Regards, Simon