On second thought, I'm fully on board with dropping printf(1p) and using format(1). I wonder if the name could be better though - I still think "format" is vague.
I don't think out(1) is necessary. Even really fresh beginners to C are taught printf(3p) and that requires the newline to be specified.
I still believe yes(1) should be a shell script, wrapping format(1).
On second thought, I'm fully on board with dropping printf(1p) and using format(1). I wonder if the name could be better though - I still think "format" is vague.
I don't think out(1) is necessary. Even really fresh beginners to C are taught printf(3p) and that requires the newline to be specified.
I still believe yes(1) should be a shell script, wrapping format(1).
_Originally posted by @trinity in https://git.tebibyte.media/bonsai/coreutils/issues/27#issuecomment-3169_
I feel that an out(1) or equivalent is important for a couple reasons:
outputting unescaped format specifiers
outputting unformatted strings
There’s a reason C has puts().
I feel that an `out(1)` or equivalent is important for a couple reasons:
- outputting unescaped format specifiers
- outputting unformatted strings
There’s a reason C has `puts()`.
Trinity and I discussed earlier that format(1) should work similarly to the Rust format! macro, for example:
; let var val
; format "{}\n" var
val
; let
Trinity and I discussed earlier that `format(1)` should work similarly to the Rust [`format!` macro](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/fmt/index.html), for example:
```
; let var val
; format "{}\n" var
val
; let
```
Trinity and I discussed earlier that format(1) should work similarly to the Rust format! macro, for example:
; let var val
; format "{}\n" var
val
; let
Just realized this will conflict with subshells in qi if they are specified with curly braces.
> Trinity and I discussed earlier that `format(1)` should work similarly to the Rust [`format!` macro](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/fmt/index.html), for example:
>
> ```
> ; let var val
> ; format "{}\n" var
> val
> ; let
> ```
Just realized this will conflict with subshells in qi if they are specified with curly braces.
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.
On second thought, I'm fully on board with dropping printf(1p) and using format(1). I wonder if the name could be better though - I still think "format" is vague.
I don't think out(1) is necessary. Even really fresh beginners to C are taught printf(3p) and that requires the newline to be specified.
I still believe yes(1) should be a shell script, wrapping format(1).
Originally posted by @trinity in bonsai/coreutils#27 (comment)
I feel that an
out(1)or equivalent is important for a couple reasons:There’s a reason C has
puts().I see your point and agree.
`printf(1p)`, `echo(1p)` alternativeto `format(1)`: formatting strings for ouputTrinity and I discussed earlier that
format(1)should work similarly to the Rustformat!macro, for example:Just realized this will conflict with subshells in qi if they are specified with curly braces.