Re: Comments in .notfunction?

[Shigio YAMAGUCHI]

> That sounds good too!

I have made a patch for it. The next release will include this code
If there is no opposition.
Thank you.

RCS file: /sources/global/global/libparser/parser.c,v
retrieving revision 1.24
diff -r1.24 parser.c
83c83,85
<       for (tablesize = 0; (p = strbuf_fgets(ib, ip, STRBUF_NOCRLF))
!= NULL; tablesize++)
---
>       for (tablesize = 0; (p = strbuf_fgets(ib, ip, STRBUF_NOCRLF)) != NULL; 
> tablesize++) {
>               if (*p == ';')          /* Lines starting with ';' are comment 
> lines. */
>                       continue;
84a87
>       }

On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 10:21 PM Miller, Matt (SCON)
<Matt.Miller2@netapp.com> wrote:
>
> That sounds good too!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shigio YAMAGUCHI <shigio@gnu.org>
> Date: Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 9:38 PM
> To: "Miller, Matt (SCON)" <Matt.Miller2@netapp.com>
> Cc: "bug-global@gnu.org" <bug-global@gnu.org>, "Park, Collin" 
> <Collin.Park@netapp.com>
> Subject: Re: Comments in .notfunction?
>
> NetApp Security WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click links or 
> open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>
>
>
>
> Hello,
> I'm worried you may not be able to handle function names that
> start with a '#'.
> How about using ';'?  I don't think using ';' at the beginning of
> a function name cannot happen in any language.
>
> [.notfunction]
> ;
> ; The names given here are not considered functions.
> ;
> main
> funcx
>
> Regards,
> Shigio
>
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 12:23 AM Miller, Matt (SCON)
> <Matt.Miller2@netapp.com> wrote:
> >
> > Based on a very quick glance of the code (version 6.6.6), it looks like in 
> > load_notfunction(), the STRBUF_SHARPSKIP flag could be added to the 
> > strbuf_fgets() call to support '#' prefixed comment lines in .notfunction:
> >
> >
> >
> > 83         for (tablesize = 0; (p = strbuf_fgets(ib, ip, STRBUF_NOCRLF)) != 
> > NULL; tablesize++)
> >
> > 84                 strbuf_puts0(sb, p);
> >
> >
> >
> > If that evaluation is correct, we were wondering if that would be a minor 
> > enhancement worth tracking.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> > Matt
>
>
>
> --
> Shigio YAMAGUCHI <shigio@gnu.org>
> PGP fingerprint:
> 26F6 31B4 3D62 4A92 7E6F  1C33 969C 3BE3 89DD A6EB
>


-- 
Shigio YAMAGUCHI <shigio@gnu.org>
PGP fingerprint:
26F6 31B4 3D62 4A92 7E6F  1C33 969C 3BE3 89DD A6EB