[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Jump from 2.1.65 to 2.9.5
From: |
Bill Denney |
Subject: |
Re: Jump from 2.1.65 to 2.9.5 |
Date: |
Sun, 16 Apr 2006 08:03:20 -0400 (EDT) |
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, Daniel J Sebald wrote:
Hmm, alright. So I'm guessing that this might not be correct then:
octave:11> sprintf('hi\nthere')
ans = hi
there
which currently is the same as with " ", unless the printf() family has been
fixed in CVS.
I'm not sure what you mean by them being fixed. One way to think about
this is:
* You create an uninterpreted (single quoted) string.
* You pass that string to a function that interprets the string (sprintf).
*printf does more than just interpret the \'s, though. It also does
things like variable substitution which is not done in double quoted
strings. For example,
name = 'Daniel';
sprintf("Hello, %s\n", name)
ans = Hello Daniel
On the first line, we make name be an un-escaped string Daniel. This
would be fully equivalent to using double quotes since there are no
backslashes.
On the second line, we put the string "Hello, %s\n" into sprintf for
variable interpretation. Sprintf doesn't actually see the \n it only sees
the actual character code (0x13 I think) because the backslash conversion
was taken care of by the double quotes. Sprintf still has work to do
because it has to do the string substitution of name for %s.
So, I shouldn't be writing lines like this:
__gnuplot_raw__ (sprintf ('set nokey\n'));
but instead like this
__gnuplot_raw__ ("set nokey\n");
?
Both of those are accurate. The second just involves one fewer function
call (I think-- I'm not sure actually about the internals).
gvim's highlighting works better with single quotes than with double
quotes, unfortunately.
It sounds like you may be using a matlab mode for gvim instead of an
Octave mode. I don't know if an Octave mode exists, though.
Bill
--
"Plugging it into potatoes will result in potatoes with holes"
-- totl.net
- Jump from 2.1.65 to 2.9.5, Daniel J Sebald, 2006/04/15
- Re: Jump from 2.1.65 to 2.9.5, Bill Denney, 2006/04/15
- Re: Jump from 2.1.65 to 2.9.5, Daniel J Sebald, 2006/04/16
- Re: Jump from 2.1.65 to 2.9.5,
Bill Denney <=
- Re: Jump from 2.1.65 to 2.9.5, Søren Hauberg, 2006/04/16
- Re: Jump from 2.1.65 to 2.9.5, Daniel J Sebald, 2006/04/16
- Re: Jump from 2.1.65 to 2.9.5, John W. Eaton, 2006/04/16
- Re: Jump from 2.1.65 to 2.9.5, Daniel J Sebald, 2006/04/16
- Re: Jump from 2.1.65 to 2.9.5, Rafael Laboissiere, 2006/04/22