Re: It's time...

["Ralf S. Engelschall" <nospam@thanx>]

On Sat, May 08, 1999, Schmid, Johannes wrote:

> > Stefan `Sec` Zehl <sec@42.org> writes:
> >> What about the slices inside slices problem I posted about ?
> 
> > That can be solved by reading the man-page.  There is absolutely no
> > use for slices within slices.
> 
> I kind of have the same problem and slices within slices would be a great
> help for me. 

Sorry when I ask such late (I'd not the time to follow the original thread),
but what exactly do you mean by "slices inside slices" and why is it not
supported? I personally understand by "slices inside slices" something like

[FOO:foo1[BAR:bar:]foo2:]

And this _IS_ supported, of course. And Pass 9 allows one to mix slices in
arbitrary ways through set operations, so I'm still confused what particular
set/slices problem can't be solved by it? Can you give me a pure slice-based
example (no interaction with other tags) and a result you want to see and
which you think cannot be done with a set operation on the -o command line?

I'm still a little bit confused, so feel free to force my opinion.

                                       Ralf S. Engelschall
                                       rse@engelschall.com
                                       www.engelschall.com
______________________________________________________________________
Website META Language (WML)                www.engelschall.com/sw/wml/
Official Support Mailing List                   sw-wml@engelschall.com
Automated List Manager                       majordomo@engelschall.com