[Freeciv-Dev] Re: commandline syntax and semantics (was: Server/ruleset unification)

[Arien Malec <arien_malec@xxxxxxxxx>]

First, just to be clear, all my examples are about object types, not instances.
So when I wrote "unit.archers" I should have written "units.archers"

In sum, our disagreement is: I would create a new identifier to refer to
advances, etc., whereas you would use name_orig. Not much difference, and I
won't argue if the consensus of the list is for name_orig rather than a new
identifier.

It seems like the consensus of the list is to invest some work to make the
lexer/parser flexible enough to support multi-attribute set/creates, and to use
some kind of braces/parens to group the attributes being set.

Arien
--- Reinier Post <rp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Yes, but I presented a system for quoting that would be easy to parse:
> quote by surrounding with " ", and make ""  stand for " within " "s.
> You do have to keep track of whether you're within quotes or not.
> It can be made obligatory to quote names.

I agree that it can be done, but I think it's simpler to introduce an object
indentifier. If we go your way, it should be obligatory to quote names.
 
> > 2) See the following set of commands:
> > 
> > ; in the ruleset:
> > create unit.archers
> 
> I still don't know what unit.archers is - a variable declaration
> for the variable with the name 'archers' freely chosen by the user?
> In that case using the . notation here is very confusing; declarations
> are usually done like this:

Again, I intend the above command to mean "create the unit type archers"

> > ; on the command-line, my semantics
> > set unit.archers.name = "Bowmen"
> > set unit.archers.hitpoints = ...
> > 
> > ; on the command-line, your sematics
> > set unit.archers.name = "Bowmen"
> > set unit.bowmen.hitpoints = ....
> > ; Does unit.archers still exist now?
> 
> unit.archers doesn't identify anything now; the created object can
> now be referred to as unit.bowmen, unless there was already a unit
> with that name.
> 
> BTW the example is really about unit_types rather than units,
> so my syntax would actually be:
> 
>   create units.archers  # automatically gets name "Archers" assigned
>   set units.archers.name = "Bowmen"
>   set units.bowmen.hitpoints = ...
> 
> and the mechanism is different: you introduce and use a variable name,
> I do not.

I introduce an identifier to refer to the unit.

If I'm playing in a French locale, does units.archers.name = "Bowmen" set the
English or the French title? I assume the English?

[...]
  
> Brackets can also be used (a la Pascal's WITH) to allow local
> abbreviations for set commands:
> 
>   set techs."Atomic Theory" {
>      req1= ...
>      req2= ...
>      name = "Atomic Enegry Technology"
>   }
> 
> This way you don't need any variables at all.  The set and create
> syntax is identical; the only difference would be that 'create'
> requires the indicated object to be new, while 'set' requires it
> to exist already.

If we force the bracket to be introduced on the same line as the create/set
command, we can even do away with terminating commands with ";", as the
presence of the bracket will force the lexer/parser into a "read till
terminator" mode. 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.com