Subject: Re: make: : implementation
To: Alan Barrett <email@example.com>
From: Simon J. Gerraty <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/24/2003 12:06:29
>On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Simon J. Gerraty wrote:
>> I was originally going to remove the :tW and :tw modifiers since :[*]
>> and :[@] have the same effect, but for the little code they consume I
>> don't mind leaving them as is. The W modifier for :C and :S is also
>I don't much like having :, :[*], :tW, :[@] and :tw as five ways of
>doing only two different things, but I don't know which of them to keep
>and which to remove.
Agreed - if we keep the :C and :S /W flag (which I think we should),
then perhaps :tW is preferable as it is at least somewhat similar.
At the same time : is nice from an awk perspective ;-)
:[*] and :[@] make sense once you compare them to "$*" and "$@", but
I fear they will be confusing none the less.
>Both :[m..n] and :[n..m] are treated identically, so both :[2..-1] and
>:[-1..2] mean "everything from the second word to the last word". If we
>ever plan to use syntax like this to reverse the order of words in the
>result (but if we don't implement that functionality just yet), then it
>might be a good idea to say that it's an error (for now) for the indices
>to be in the wrong order.
I plan to eventually handle reversing the order, so yes will make [-1..2]
an error for now.