Re: A subst-antial question
- From: "Busirane" <john.j.seal@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 23 Apr 2006 18:39:56 -0700
Kip Rugger wrote:
I suspect you are trying to do a simplified version of 2). You have
a set of variables whose values you wish to replicate
That's right. The context in which this question came up has two
interpreters (actually more, but we can treat them pairwise) in which
I'd like to keep certain variables (but not all) in sync. I could
write a bunch of "set" or "array set" statements for the local
interpreter, then write them again for the remote interpreter; I know
how to do that for all the various kinds of things I need to replicate.
But then I thought, why not just take the "script" for the local
interpreter and use it to generate the script for the remote
interpreter? My naive attempt used [subst], and resulted in a
surprising revelation about just what [subst] does and doesn't do.
Maybe what it comes down to is that I'm surprised there's no simple way
to substitute an expression without changing the number of words in it,
like the parser does. Or maybe I'm mistaken about what I think the
parser is doing.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A subst-antial question
- From: Donal K. Fellows
- Re: A subst-antial question
- From: Kip Rugger
- Re: A subst-antial question
- References:
- A subst-antial question
- From: Busirane
- Re: A subst-antial question
- From: Don Porter
- Re: A subst-antial question
- From: Busirane
- Re: A subst-antial question
- From: Kip Rugger
- A subst-antial question
- Prev by Date: Re: A subst-antial question
- Next by Date: www.campuswhiteboard.com
- Previous by thread: Re: A subst-antial question
- Next by thread: Re: A subst-antial question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|