René Scharfe <rene.scharfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Which other text functions are we going to add which would break this
> model? The only thing I can think of right now is nesting such
> functions themselves, e.g. when indenting a list in an indented
> sub-paragraph in an indented paragraph. Useful?
I was more worried about painting ourselves now in a corner we cannot get
out of easily later. Even if my answer to question "what are we going to
add" may be "nothing I can think of right now", it does not make me happy.
Something off the top of my head are combinations like these.
%[toupper()%cD%] => 'SUN, 18 OCT 2009 12:34:56 -0700'
%[substr(7,3)%[toupper()%cD%]] => 'OCT'
%[sanitize()%s%] === %f (i.e. format-patch filename)
%[sanitize()%[substr(0,7)%[toupper()%aN%]%]%s] (with upcased author name)
By the way, I think that date formatting can be helped by introducing a
strftime() function that takes %ct/%at as input, e.g. %aD would become
%[strftime(%a, %d %b %Y %H:%M:%S %z)%at]
and we do not have to worry about keep adding random %[ac]X formats and
running out of X. Right now we use d/D/r/i and there were talks of adding
a shortened 8601 format without time or something we did not implement.
Also, if we had this %[func() any string%] mechanism, we probably wouldn't
have had to add distinction between n/N and e/E after %a and %c.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html