Suggestions for v10
- Thread starter rconn
- Start date
- May
- 13,126
- 180
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:07:19 -0500, you wrote:
Functions min() and max() inside @eval (with nested evaluation).
so that one could
@eval[a+min(b+c,d,e)]
instead of
@eval[a+%@min[%@eval[a+b],d,e]]
and
set /a z=a+min(b+c,d,e)
I could have used that recently. Other candidates for implementation by @EVAL
are
abs(), ceil(), flr()
maybe even a version of conditional expressions, perhaps
@eval[a+if(b+c GE d+e,f+g,h+i)]
(using @IF would require four more @EVALs)
and
set /a z=a+if(b+c GE d+e,f+g,h+i)
--
- Vince
Functions min() and max() inside @eval (with nested evaluation).
so that one could
@eval[a+min(b+c,d,e)]
instead of
@eval[a+%@min[%@eval[a+b],d,e]]
and
set /a z=a+min(b+c,d,e)
I could have used that recently. Other candidates for implementation by @EVAL
are
abs(), ceil(), flr()
maybe even a version of conditional expressions, perhaps
@eval[a+if(b+c GE d+e,f+g,h+i)]
(using @IF would require four more @EVALs)
and
set /a z=a+if(b+c GE d+e,f+g,h+i)
--
- Vince
rconn
Administrator
- May
- 13,169
- 205
Staff member
myarmor wrote:
Since I'm just starting the design, it's a bit premature to announce a
release date! There's still the design/coding/alpha test/private
beta/public beta cycles left to do. (Which is, ummm, everything ...)
Major upgrades have been running about 12-14 months; I don't know that
that constitutes "somewhat fast" (well, maybe in comparison to
Microsoft). Updates aren't mandatory; we find that people generally
skip a version or two.
Rex Conn
JP Software
Since I'm just starting the design, it's a bit premature to announce a
release date! There's still the design/coding/alpha test/private
beta/public beta cycles left to do. (Which is, ummm, everything ...)
Major upgrades have been running about 12-14 months; I don't know that
that constitutes "somewhat fast" (well, maybe in comparison to
Microsoft). Updates aren't mandatory; we find that people generally
skip a version or two.
Rex Conn
JP Software
samintz
Scott Mintz
- May
- 1,590
- 27
Here's my list.
1) Built-in support for memory mapped files.
2) Support for serialized pipes - i.e. pipes that don't require a separate
process. So things like setting env vars in the piped process get
reflected in the calling process.
3) Piping into a DO...ENDDO (note that this would work if the pipe was
serialized per suggestion #2):
dir /b | do file in @con
echo file: %file
enddo
4) Command execution within a DO...ENDDO
do file in 'dir /b'
echo file: %file
enddo
-Scott
rconn <> wrote on 06/11/2008 08:07:19 PM:
1) Built-in support for memory mapped files.
2) Support for serialized pipes - i.e. pipes that don't require a separate
process. So things like setting env vars in the piped process get
reflected in the calling process.
3) Piping into a DO...ENDDO (note that this would work if the pipe was
serialized per suggestion #2):
dir /b | do file in @con
echo file: %file
enddo
4) Command execution within a DO...ENDDO
do file in 'dir /b'
echo file: %file
enddo
-Scott
rconn <> wrote on 06/11/2008 08:07:19 PM:
rconn
Administrator
- May
- 13,169
- 205
Staff member
What would you do with them?
samintz
Scott Mintz
- May
- 1,590
- 27
Fast temporary files that wouldn't need to be cleaned up for starters.
-Scott
rconn <>
06/13/2008 04:29 PM
Please respond to
To
[email protected]
cc
Subject
RE: [Support-t-180] Re: Suggestions for v10
Quote:
Originally Posted by samintz
Here's my list.
1) Built-in support for memory mapped files.
What would you do with them?
-Scott
rconn <>
06/13/2008 04:29 PM
Please respond to
To
[email protected]
cc
Subject
RE: [Support-t-180] Re: Suggestions for v10
Quote:
Originally Posted by samintz
Here's my list.
1) Built-in support for memory mapped files.
What would you do with them?