6:09 p.m.
Hi,
would it be too much to ask that literal matrix lines can be broken
after the rows (after semicolon) without the explicit backslash line
continuation character? It's not needed very often, but when it is, then
it usually involves many lines.
thanks
sven
9:09 p.m.
On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, Sven Schreiber wrote:
Hi,
would it be too much to ask that literal matrix lines can be broken
after the rows (after semicolon) without the explicit backslash line
continuation character? It's not needed very often, but when it is, then
it usually involves many lines.
We already recognize a trailing comma as calling for line
continuation so we should be able to do the same for semicolon quite
easily. Can anyone think of a case where that could break things?
Allin
9:19 p.m.
On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, Allin Cottrell wrote:
We already recognize a trailing comma as calling for line
continuation so we
should be able to do the same for semicolon quite easily. Can anyone think of
a case where that could break things?
Not me!
-------------------------------------------------------
Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti
Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali (DiSES)
Università Politecnica delle Marche
(formerly known as Università di Ancona)
r.lucchetti(a)univpm.it
http://www2.econ.univpm.it/servizi/hpp/lucchetti
-------------------------------------------------------
12:23 a.m.
On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, Allin Cottrell wrote:
> We already recognize a trailing comma as calling for line continuation so
> we should be able to do the same for semicolon quite easily. Can anyone
> think of a case where that could break things?
Not me!
Nor me, so it's now in git on a trial basis.
Allin
10:42 a.m.
Am 18.12.2020 um 01:23 schrieb Allin Cottrell:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, Allin Cottrell wrote:
>
>> We already recognize a trailing comma as calling for line
>> continuation so we should be able to do the same for semicolon quite
>> easily. Can anyone think of a case where that could break things?
>
> Not me!
Wild speculation: What about a "!" shell command line in a
gretl script?
But I guess the gretl parser then doesn't handle that anyway. Basically
the same thing applies to foreign blocks, of course.
Nor me, so it's now in git on a trial basis.
thanks!
sven
2:40 p.m.
On Fri, 18 Dec 2020, Sven Schreiber wrote:
Am 18.12.2020 um 01:23 schrieb Allin Cottrell:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, Allin Cottrell wrote:
>>
>>> We already recognize a trailing comma as calling for line
>>> continuation so we should be able to do the same for semicolon quite
>>> easily. Can anyone think of a case where that could break things?
>>
>> Not me!
Wild speculation: What about a "!" shell command line in a gretl script?
But I guess the gretl parser then doesn't handle that anyway. Basically
the same thing applies to foreign blocks, of course.
>
> Nor me, so it's now in git on a trial basis.
>
thanks!
Oops, sorry, trial over! I forgot about use of ';' to indicate no
change in a sample limit, as in
smpl 2005:1 ;
Arguably '.' might be better in that context, but it's too late.
Allin
2:54 p.m.
Am 18.12.2020 um 15:40 schrieb Allin Cottrell:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2020, Sven Schreiber wrote:
> Am 18.12.2020 um 01:23 schrieb Allin Cottrell:
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, Allin Cottrell wrote:
>>>
>>>> We already recognize a trailing comma as calling for line
>>>> continuation so we should be able to do the same for semicolon quite
>>>> easily. Can anyone think of a case where that could break things?
>>>
>>> Not me!
> Wild speculation: What about a "!" shell command line in a gretl script?
> But I guess the gretl parser then doesn't handle that anyway. Basically
> the same thing applies to foreign blocks, of course.
>>
>> Nor me, so it's now in git on a trial basis.
>>
> thanks!
Oops, sorry, trial over! I forgot about use of ';' to indicate no change
in a sample limit, as in
smpl 2005:1 ;
Arguably '.' might be better in that context, but it's too late.
OK, no problem. Although speaking of the smpl syntax, maybe it would be
good to allow 0 as an equivalent for ; in this context. (Similar to the
'smpl +3 +0' syntax variant, although I forget why the + in +0 is needed.)
thanks
sven
1470
days inactive
1471
days old
6 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Allin Cottrell -
Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti -
Sven Schreiber