Re: Scripting (IMPORTANT!)

[Marco Gerards]

"Yoshinori K. Okuji" <address@hidden> writes:

>> >> =====
>> >>  for
>> >> =====
>> >>
>> >> The for command can be used to iterate over a set of data.  I don't
>> >> like the idea of implementing this *exactly* like in bash.  Personally
>> >> I am thinking of the following syntax:
>> >>
>> >> Iterating over files:
>> >> for x in (hd0,3)/foo/* ; do commands ; done
>> >
>> > How is this different from BASH? The asterisk is interpreted as a
>> > wildcard, and this is not a part of "for" in BASH.
>>
>> You removed the relevant context.  Right, GRUB has no wildcard.  I
>> don't really understand what you mean.
>
> I meant that the asterisk is not a part of a description for "for".

It's good you mention this, because it's exactly the discussion I want
to start.  The question here is: How do we want to deal with the
`for'?

In bash it iterates over all arguments.  The wildcards are expanded by
the shell and thus it just has a look at its arguments.  The question
here is, do we want to deal with wildcards?  It makes the code more
complex and I think there is little gain.

For GRUB I think some kind of iterators are more useful.  In that case
you can write a module to iterate over certain data.  For example over
files, disks, partitions, terminals or whatever.  It leaves the bash
syntax, but it is more useful in our case and modular.

>> > This sounds too much for me. How about supporting a subset of "set" in
>> > BASH? For example, set -d and set +d. The default can be set -d.
>>
>> What do you mean by "this"?  I assume you mean -e instead of -d?  I
>> hope you can check what you really mean, a -d does not exist.
>
> Oops. Yes, I meant -e instead.

Great!  Thanks.  I didn't know about "set -e", so I am happy you
mentioned it.  I will add this feature to our set.

--
Marco