Re: PATCH: Enhancing math expressions a bit

[Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Peter Stephenson wrote:

> Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
> > This does that: it replaces `keys' with `KEYS' and that contains the
> > literal character codes.
> 
> Well, here's some documentation.

Ouch, sorry.

> But I'm worried about what happens with
> control-space.  Might it not be better to use an array with the literal
> codes in (so a null-string means ^@), or alternatively provide a length
> parameter, or use some form of metafication?

(Now I finally understood why you mentioned that lately...)

Urgh, yes, this is ugly (at least $(( #keys )) correctly returns zero
in this case). I wouldn't be against going back to some kind of readable
form, but I would really like to have it report keys in the same way
as `read'. Maybe it would be better to leave `keys' alone and add an
option to `read' that says that keys are to be reported as arrays of
bindkey-like strings? (Hm, -K is unused.)
The solution with a separate number-of-keys parameter looks a bit odd,
doesn't it?

> > Now, should we add a way to turn such codes into a readable form?
> 
> Can probably be done quite simply with a shell function, which could be
> marked #autoload if needed.

Yes.

Bye
 Sven


--
Sven Wischnowsky                         wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx