[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: retaining interpreter when running script from command line
From: |
John W. Eaton |
Subject: |
Re: retaining interpreter when running script from command line |
Date: |
Thu, 3 Mar 2005 21:40:45 -0500 |
[moved from the help list --jwe]
On 3-Mar-2005, Andy Adler <address@hidden> wrote:
| We may not need --funcall, but I propose we leave it there,
| since it may be useful, and isn't in the way or anything.
In a way it is, because then we have to decide what to do when both
options are supplied, and it complicates the implementation to have
two ways of doing essentially the same thing.
How about the attached changes? With them, you do things like
octave --eval CODE # eval CODE, exit
octave --persist --eval CODE # eval CODE, go interactive
octave doit.m # eval file, exit
octave --persist doit.m # eval file, go interactive
octave --eval CODE doit.m # eval CODE, file, exit
octave --persist --eval CODE doit.m # eval CODE, file, go interactive
I don't see a need for --funcall now because
--funcall function_name
is essentially the same as
--eval function_name
and I don't see a good reason to have both.
Finally, should we also warn about using more than one --eval option?
Currently, only the last one will be evaluated and no warning will be
issued.
jwe
diffs.gz
Description: Binary data
- Re: retaining interpreter when running script from command line,
John W. Eaton <=