set a 5 set b $a + 3 + ($a * 2) puts $b'$b' will be 18. The only requirement is to use 'mathematical' set case with more than 1 and 2 arguments (which are number of arguments for default set syntax). In practise it means that you have to do at least one white-space in math expression, or set will be interpreted as the Tcl-built-in one. Here's code to enable such functionality:
rename ::set ::set.org
proc ::set {var args} {
if {[llength $args] > 1} {
uplevel [list ::set.org $var [eval expr "{$args}"]]
} else {
uplevel [list ::set.org $var [lindex $args 0]]
}
}RS: Cute. But the case of [llength $args]==0 should also be covered as returning the value - right now it would set it to {}. Also, all the efficiency gained with braced expressions is of course lost here...
WHD: I prefer "let", as in
let b {$a + 3 + ($a * 2)}or especially
let x {$x + 1.5}Implemented in C, it's also reasonably fast.escargo 10 Jan 2006 - I kind of like that distinction (that is, between set and let). (Maybe because I was exposed to some form of BASIC in ancient times.) It certainly is less typing to write
let x {$x + 1.5}than
set x [expr {$x + 1.5}]What about allowing bare words to dispense with the $? (Since the braced expression is a right hand side, after all.) That would give
let x {x + 1.5}Is that too radical a change?RS: It might cause conflicts between functions and arrays: let x {sin(x)+cos(y)}Lars H: IMO, it wouldn't be onerous to continue to require $ for arrays. let r {$A(i) + cos(omega*j)}Perhaps also some shorthand for lindex while we're at it? I think # is unused.RS takes this cue to let unknown know:^)
% know {if {[lindex $args 1] eq "#"} {return [lindex [lindex $args 0] [lindex $args 2]]}}
% {hello world out there} # 2
out
% set test {1 2 3 4 5 6 7}
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
% set t [$test # 4]
5NEM likes adding a touch more sugar and having:
let x = {$x + 1.5}escargo 11 Jan 2006 - One of the reasons I like plain let instead of set is because it is shorthand. Having the = adds more characters, which is the opposite of the goal of shorthand. You could go farther down this path and do = x {x + 1.5}as a somewhat more radical version. It's even shorter. I still prefer let, though.
