[PATCH v8 4/8] env: Allow U-Boot scripts to be placed in a .env file

[Simon Glass]

Hi Tom,

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 10:30, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 10:24:25AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Wolfgang,
> >
> > On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 10:20, Wolfgang Denk <wd at denx.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Simon,
> > >
> > > In message <CAPnjgZ1p6ueRhDsgBZGMXFhgv7UhRFA1UfvoHGGd0-136oTgvA at mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But how do we handle this?
> > > >
> > > > var+=fred
> > > >
> > > > Is this appending to var or assigning to var+  ?
> > >
> > > It is assigning to "var+".
> >
> > er...
> >
> > > >
> > > > var++=fred
> > > >
> > > > is unambiguous but very confusing. I think it would be better to disallow +
> > >
> > > It's neither unambiguous nor confusing.  It is assigning to "var++".
> >
> > What? Can you read that again?
>
> With the assumption that the append operator is "=+" and NOT "+=" then
> yes, your examples are unambiguous because = is not allowed in variable
> names, before and after.
>
> > > I think we should not change what is old and might be in use.
> > >
> > > It is much easier to change what is new and can be defined at will.
> > >
> > > If we define for example that "<name>=+<value>" appends, then we can
> > > also define our own escape rules, for example:
> > >
> > >         var=fred        assigns
> > >         var=+fred       appends "fred"
> > >         var=\+fred      assignes the value "+fred"
> > >         var=++fred      appends "+fred"
> >
> > I don't like that at all. It requires an escape for a common case and
> > is very confusing.
>
> Wait saying we'll add "+SOMETHING" is a common case?

Yes we have places where we add to env vars depending on CONFIG settings.

>
> > Since people will be converting their out-of-tree scripts anyway, they
> > can check for this sort of madness at the time. There should be no
> > problem.
>
> I'm not sure I like saying the operator is "=+" rather than "+=" because
> "=+" is a less commonly seen operator and tends to be an alternative
> appends for special cases / side-effects / position in parsing.

Me neither. I started hearing Voltaire's admonition ringing in my head
a few emails back.

The way I have this, is it fairly trivial to convert an existing
script to a text file. I suspect it can be done automatically but I
have not actually tried it. I'd really like to keep it simple. I also
want to invoke the 'if you are not in mainline you don't exist' maxim
at this point.

Regards,
Simon