On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 17:09 -0400, Mark E. Mallett wrote:
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 05:32:43PM +0200, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
incidentally, if we had a "reverse" operator, users could implement
non-greedy themselves:
set :reverse "pattern" "[*] *"; [...]
I'm all in favor of giving script writers options, such as a :non-greedy
option. I don't really get what your ":reverse" does for "set" though.
it'd reverse the argument before storing it in the variable. e.g.,
'set :reverse "var" "kram"' would set ${var} to "mark".
(the example was included for fun, to illustrate how arbitrary our
choice is for an implementation, it's a _lousy_ use case for :reverse,
in truth I don't see any utility of such a modifier :-)
--
Kjetil T.