Re: Matlab-compatible string class

[John W. Eaton]

On 12/31/2017 05:04 AM, ederag wrote:

> Let's hope they think it over.

I don't think that they will.

> But I guess python will remain superior to matlab for string handling.

I may agree with you, but I also suppose that is subjective.

> https://docs.python.org/3/reference/lexical_analysis.html#string-and-bytes-literals
> especially
> "": interpreted (like octave)
> r"": raw (like current matlab)
> not to mention the handy f"" format...
>
> Let's say that r"" mean raw string in octave too.

If you want this in Octave, then it has to be the other way around.

"" is compatible with Matlab, always.

i"" or e"" or something means "interpolated escape sequences in this 
string".

> One way to maintain octave's nice behavior while allowing
> to use or distribute packages compatible with matlab
> would be a way to declare _files_ as "matlab braindead".
> The "pkg load" or initialization script would perform the declaration.
> Especially for pkg load, this would be deterministic and transparent to the 
> user.
>
> Instead of braindead, borrowing Dan's suggestion, it could be
> interpconfig({files}, '-defaultStringType', 'escape');
>
> For these marked files, "" would be interpreted as r"" strings.
>
> Since it affects only the interpretation of a file,
> it seems safer and easier to maintain
> than the old global --braindead that is definitely discarded.

No, we are not doing any of that.  Sorry, but as I said, we've been down 
that path before and we are not doing it again.  Do I have to throw in a 
"this is non-negotiable"?  :-)

jwe