Detlev Zundel <d...@denx.de> wrote on 2010-04-08 18:06:40: > > Hi Jocke,
Hi again :) > > [...] > > > Since an escape char appear to exist, one should be able to use it much > > like you > > did above so I don't think that any use case disappears. Instead the common > > usage > > becomes simpler and the so far artificial use case needs an extra escape > > char. > > Hm. I have to admit that I did not actually try your code, but there is > a loop in there until no further substitution takes place. It seems to > me that this loop over process_macros thus does substitution _and_ uses > up the escape characters. Possibly, I haven't tested that either but ... > > So I fear that if in one iteration _some_ substitution takes place and > the escape character is stripped in the same iteration _another_ round > of substitution will be done and the escape character is gone. So in > effect you will have to study the whole string in advance (plus all the > substitutions it will see) to tell how many rounds the loop will take > and how many escape characters will be needed. > > Such a behaviour would be very odd in my eyes. On the other hand, this > is only theory.... ... I don't think you or WD has changed your mind even it it worked the way we want it to so no point arguing over an impl. detail/bug when we don't agree on the big picture. This "feature" isn't that important to me so I rest my case. Jocke _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
