Is anybody else reading this? Please voice an opinion if you are.
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 14:33 +0100, Purple Streak wrote:
> 2009/7/28 Purple Streak <mrpurplestreak_at_googlemail.com>:
> > [forgot to include list]
> > 2009/7/28 Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>:
> >> You misunderstand me. As you say, it is good to make the use of the
> >> escape mechanism optional, for that reason. I meant the choice of WHICH
> >> character to use seems unnecessary.
> > Ok - sorry :)
> > Like I said we use windows so the usual '\' char might well be
> > confusing. How about the character argument becomes optional and
> > defaults to '\' if not given?
I assume you are still thinking of your simple method where the
continuation character is only special when it occurs at the end of a
line, and there is no way to specify an argument that ends with that
character. That still sounds clumsy to me.
What most concerns me is that this is really solving just one symptom of
a wider problem: how to specify a general property value. This might
contain not only newlines but arbitrary binary data (e.g. a JPEG-encoded
thumbnail image). A different solution is needed for that.
One day, potentially, we can implement a new, general solution. But, in
the meantime, we can do your suggestion because it is at least an
improvement, solving the problem of specifying a propery value that
contains line breaks.
With that in mind I'm comfortable about you implementing your
> > 2009/7/28 Geoff Rowell <geoff.rowell_at_gmail.com>:
> >> I wouldn't suggest using a short option of "-c". It'll be confused with the
> >> "change" identifier option.
> > Very happy to make this whatever you suggest :) I just chose 'c' as
> > short for "continuation_char". To be honest I wasnt't sure what to
> > use for either of them but they seemed the most logical.
> > Maybe "-o" ?
Are people often going to be typing this command on the command line? If
so, a short option is valuable. If not, don't provide one.
> Hi - I'm keen to try and get this patch accepted so is what I
> suggested about making the character optional acceptable ok?
Received on 2009-07-31 17:21:40 CEST