Re: [NASL2] Auto-conversion with + and -

On 9 Feb 2003, Michel Arboi wrote:

> BTW, I am adding a strcat function. Maybe we'll get rid of this +
> operator

> (we'll have to do something with - too)

String - is wierd. It appears to be pretty useful at the first glance but
AFAIK 9 of 10 times it is used 1. together with strstr() to extract a
given part of the string (in a rather cumbersome way), 2. together with
ereg_replace() to split a string into parts (cumbersome as well), 3. to
remove trailing newlines.

Ad 1. can be solved with a single ereg_replace().
Ad 2. can be solved with eregmatch().
Ad 3. can be solved with chomp().

> > I think the whole concept of pure/impure strings creates considerably more
> > problems than it solves.
> 
> So do I. That's why I implemented "pure strings". But we cannot
> get rid of "impure strings" without rewriting many plugins. That's why
> I used a different separator for pure strings (single quote instead of
> double quote)

Can we declare them obsolete and avoid them in (new) scripts, please? :)

Perhaps the interpreter could have something like "pragma(NASLpre2)" to
mark scripts relying on obsolete features of the language. (Or the exact
opposite marking new scripts not relying on them but I think it is better
to make it default to the new (and presumably better) style.)

> > Is there any script that (really) needs to work with impure strings
> 
> It's easier to declare regex patterns with "impure strings" than with
> pure strings. That's the only example I can think of.
> e.g. ereg_replace(string: s, pattern: "A(.*)B", replace: "\1");

This means "strings where baslashes are never interpreted" rather than
impure strings with magical backslashes.

--Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak  [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ]
"Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation."