Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Mar 2012 13:15:10 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] perf, tool: Add new event group management |
| |
* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 10:52 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote: > > > > > # echo {} > > > {} > > > # echo {en,dis}able > > > enable disable > > > > > > > > > It somehow special cases {}, which is horrible. > > > > Oh, indeed: brace expansion and sequence expressions both use > > curly braces: > > > > $ echo foo-{a,b,c}-bar > > foo-a-bar foo-b-bar foo-c-bar > > > > $ echo {1..10} > > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > > > > Too bad, it would be rather intuitive. All the brace characters > > are taken by Bash. > > > > Maybe something like: > > > > $ echo /minor-faults,major-faults/ > > /minor-faults,major-faults/ > > > > although it looks a bit weird. > > > > So ... how about using another grouping operator, such as '+'? > > > > Something like: > > > > -e minor-faults+major-faults > > > > While when comma separated they are not grouped, or so. > > I would much prefer a syntax that's more natural but requires > quoting than one that's quirky and tailor made to avoid > whatever current bash does. For one, there's other shells out > there that might have different quoting needs and bash is of > course free to extend its syntax.
Well, they are unlikely to extend to '+', it would break a boatload of scripts I suspect.
So the question would be, is a+b+c as event grouping a natural syntax? If not then lets use a quoted one that is.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |