Re: set subtract

Re: set subtract

[malte]

	
	 The problem with a set-subtract function is that it will loose quoting
	information if it's used as 'foo `{set-sub ....}', and you thus need to
	have it passed variable names to work on. But then you can't just use
	this on a command line; you have to build lists beforehand. About
	half the time I'd like to use this is on command lines, so I keep
	wishing for a better solution.
	
		- cks

Applause, applause!

I'd vote for making such a function built into rc to avoid meta character
trouble, the way the ~ operator does it.
A related builtin I always wanted to have:

	idx = `{ index list_of_patterns list_to_search_in }

This should return a list of indices of the search patterns in the second list.

	; echo `{ index a ( a b c a ) }
	1 4
	;

Malte

Re: rc and signal handlers

[malte]

	
	| Also, the man-page is not too clear about signals:
	|  "Only signals that are being ignored are passed on to programs run by rc"
	| The should read "signals that are being caught", I guess.
	
	 The manpage is correct as written; caught signals are not passed on to
	children, and revert to default behavior. Only ignored signals are passed
	on to children.
	
	 If one thinks about how catching signals works, it becomes obvious that
	this has to be that way.
	
		- cks

This is perfectly true! But also ugly ! This way, one has to redefine signal
handlers for each backquote substitution. On BSD and System V children
inherit signal handlers when forking and one has to change them explicitly.
Could someone explain to me why rc does it automatically ? I'd rather prefer
a simple way to reset signal handlers, something like

	fn sigreset {
		for( sig in `{ whatis -s | cut -f2 '-d ' } )
			eval fn $sig
	}

About "return"ing from a signal handler: One really doesn't want to do that.
I just mentioned it to make it clear to beginners. What bothers me most is
that rc doesn't complain about a return when defining the function and that
everything is fine when invoking the function interactively. But, when the
signal is caught, you'll get "return outside of function".

Malte

Re: set subtract

[malte]

	Easy; the following just uses built-ins.  Note that it implements
	the example (first arg is a pattern, not a list of patterns); I don't
	believe the synopsis can be done.
	fn index { pat=() i=() result=() count=() {
	    pat=$1
	    shift || { echo 'Usage error' >[1=2] ; return 1 }
	    for (i) {
	        count=(a $count)
	        eval ~ $i $pat && result=($result $#count)
	    }
	    echo $result
	} }

Fine, this is similar to what I do now. Why a built in command ?
Imagine $pat has a value of '$something'. This will break it.

Malte

Re: set subtract

[rsalz]

>A related builtin I always wanted to have:
>        idx = `{ index list_of_patterns list_to_search_in }
>This should return a list of indices of the search patterns in the second list.
>        ; echo `{ index a ( a b c a ) }
>        1 4
Easy; the following just uses built-ins.  Note that it implements
the example (first arg is a pattern, not a list of patterns); I don't
believe the synopsis can be done.
fn index { pat=() i=() result=() count=() {
    pat=$1
    shift || { echo 'Usage error' >[1=2] ; return 1 }
    for (i) {
        count=(a $count)
        eval ~ $i $pat && result=($result $#count)
    }
    echo $result
} }

set subtract

[Byron Rakitzis]

Given two lists a and b, it is possible to do set subtract
in rc with the ~ operator:

	for (i in $a)
		if (!~ $i $b)
			echo $i

So all that you need to do is write a function to build
these two lists based on the

	[a] - [b]

syntax suggested. Something like this:

	fn set-subtract {
		a=()
		while () {
			switch ($1) {
			case ()
				echo usage: $0 'foo - bar' >[1=2]
				return 1
			case -
				shift
				break
			case *
				a=($a $1)
				shift
			}
		}
		for (i in $a)
			if (!~ $i $*)
				echo $i
	}

(Btw, I would choose a shorter name than set-subtract. Sort of reminds
me of the regexp syntax that Nicklaus Wirth uses in his Oberon system.
I think it's straight BNF.  To say .* you have to write it as {~c}. Or
even worse, foo*bar becomes "fo"{"o"}"bar". Does he really use this
tool, or expect anyone else to? But I digress..)

Re: set subtract

[Chris Siebenmann]

 The problem with a set-subtract function is that it will loose quoting
information if it's used as 'foo `{set-sub ....}', and you thus need to
have it passed variable names to work on. But then you can't just use
this on a command line; you have to build lists beforehand. About
half the time I'd like to use this is on command lines, so I keep
wishing for a better solution.

	- cks