Re: Scripting (IMPORTANT!)

["Yoshinori K. Okuji" <okuji@enbug.org>]

On Friday 13 October 2006 21:52, Marco Gerards wrote:
> > I thought the same thing before, but I didn't, because the effect of
> > setting the root device has a different meaning, that is, to set a boot
> > device for the chainloader. Besides this, the root variable is very
> > similar to the concept of "current working directory" in Unix. So I
> > wouldn't object strongly, even if you change it this way.
>
> I think it makes more sense when scripting.  I also think it is easier
> for users to deal with.

I don't know. I leave the decision to you.

> > BTW the Intel's EFI Shell uses an option to a command to enable a pager.
> > This way might be more convenient than a variable. Or a pipe? I think a
> > pipe sounds overkill, though.
>
> Well, I made this a variable because we wanted variables instead of
> commands when possible.

Exactly.

> Well, $1, $2, etc makes more sense to me as well.  But it doesn't
> describe what really happens, although the user might not be concerned
> with this.  I will start a discussion on this if it causes problems.

I guess this wouldn't be a big problem, since most users wouldn't use this 
feature.

> >> =====
> >>  for
> >> =====
> >>
> >> The for command can be used to iterate over a set of data.  I don't
> >> like the idea of implementing this *exactly* like in bash.  Personally
> >> I am thinking of the following syntax:
> >>
> >> Iterating over files:
> >> for x in (hd0,3)/foo/* ; do commands ; done
> >
> > How is this different from BASH? The asterisk is interpreted as a
> > wildcard, and this is not a part of "for" in BASH.
>
> You removed the relevant context.  Right, GRUB has no wildcard.  I
> don't really understand what you mean.

I meant that the asterisk is not a part of a description for "for".

> > This sounds too much for me. How about supporting a subset of "set" in
> > BASH? For example, set -d and set +d. The default can be set -d.
>
> What do you mean by "this"?  I assume you mean -e instead of -d?  I
> hope you can check what you really mean, a -d does not exist.

Oops. Yes, I meant -e instead.

Okuji