On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 04:10:34PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Tom, > > In message <20211018133728.GQ7964@bill-the-cat> you wrote: > > > > > And please see also my comments about changing the autostart > > > functionality for the user. > > > > Perhaps we should just make "+" an illegal character in the variable > > name, for consistency? > > And break backward compatibility? I'd rather see a better > definition of the syntax of the environment files, plus maybe a more > powerful parser.
Are there examples today of scripts that use "+" in the variable names? That maybe someone wrote a custom an private thing that uses + in the name isn't the best argument. Someone saying that did would be better. > I mean, there is no technical reason to forbid the '+' character - > and then it's only at the end of the variable name. Of course yes, if we can just make the parser handle it, without it also being a tricky nightmare, that's the better solution. > Hm... I can't find it right now but did I not also read about other > restrictions to variable names, like they must noch begin with '_' > when using this new tool? Any invalid characters need to be clearly documented, if they aren't, yes. > I feel it is wrong to place new restrictions on something that was > constant for 21 years, just because our parser cannot parse it... Sure. But if it's also the case that for 21 years no one has been using foo+bar, baz+, etc, in their variable names, maybe we just document that's not valid and move on? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
