No registered users in community xowiki
in last 10 minutes
in last 10 minutes
Re: [Xotcl] XOTcl 1.3.0 available
From: Kristoffer Lawson <setok_at_fishpool.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 18:36:44 +0300 (EEST)
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Gustaf Neumann wrote:
>> What about if I don't define any nonpositional arguments,
>> can I pass arguments beginning with a dash? I kind of hope so, or
>> otherwise it may be necessary to pass "--" everywhere, and it adds
>> incompatibility with older XOTcls.
>
> one can define procs/instprocs with non-positional arguments
> and without. If you have nonposistional arguments defined, and
> you want to pass e.g. -a as "traditional" argument, you must use "--".
>
> Since existing scripts have no nonpositional arguments defined,
> nothing changed there, older scripts continue to work unmodified.
This is what I meant. That if no nonpositional args are defined, arguments
beginning with "-" will be sent as-is to the procedure. I understand from
your explanation, that this is indeed what happens.
/ http://www.fishpool.com/~setok/
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 18:36:44 +0300 (EEST)
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Gustaf Neumann wrote:
>> What about if I don't define any nonpositional arguments,
>> can I pass arguments beginning with a dash? I kind of hope so, or
>> otherwise it may be necessary to pass "--" everywhere, and it adds
>> incompatibility with older XOTcls.
>
> one can define procs/instprocs with non-positional arguments
> and without. If you have nonposistional arguments defined, and
> you want to pass e.g. -a as "traditional" argument, you must use "--".
>
> Since existing scripts have no nonpositional arguments defined,
> nothing changed there, older scripts continue to work unmodified.
This is what I meant. That if no nonpositional args are defined, arguments
beginning with "-" will be sent as-is to the procedure. I understand from
your explanation, that this is indeed what happens.
/ http://www.fishpool.com/~setok/