Use of [list a b c] vs {a b c} when creating a list - tcl

What differences are there between creating a list in TCL using:
[list a b c]
vs
{a b c}
I'm by all means not an experienced TCL programmer, but the only difference I have encountered so far is when creating a list of multiple lines the first style requires using line continuation characters like:
[list \
a \
b \
c \
]
where this parses fine:
{
a
b
c
}
Are there any other differences? Which is considered better style or idiomatic?
It would appear that when creating a complex list with nested lists, the 2nd style is the only clean way to go.

The main difference is that using the list command makes it possible to use variables when defining the list. Notice the difference between these two:
% set foo 1
1
% set bar 2
2
% set list1 [list $foo $bar]
1 2
% set list2 {$foo $bar}
$foo $bar
Note that you can also use double quotes if you want:
% set list3 "$foo $bar"
1 2
It's important to note that of the two ways to build a list with variables, only using list is guaranteed to give you a proper list. Using quotes may or may not give you a list, depending on the contents of the variables. This isn't because Tcl is mysterious or random or buggy -- it's simply how tcl quoting works. With list you are asking tcl to construct a list with specific elements, in the others you're creating a string that looks like a list, but whether it can be treated like a list or not depends on the data in the string.
Here's an example where using quotes won't give you a list:
% set foo "{"
{
% set list4 "$foo $bar"
{ 2
% lindex $list4 0
unmatched open brace in list
... whereas using list will give you a proper list:
% set list5 [list $foo $bar]
\{ 2
% lindex $list5 0
{
It's important to know that the backslash appears only when tcl converts the list to a string for the purposes of printing the list -- the backslash isn't in the data, as you can see when you use lindex to fetch the value.

Are there any other differences? Which is considered better style or idiomatic?
In the case where you're after a list with just literals in it, no variable or command expansion or anything like that, using [list a b c] and {a b c} is exactly the same. They compile to identical bytecode in Tcl 8.6 (the push of a literal onto the result stack). There really is no difference at all.
Which is more idiomatic? I don't really know, to be honest. They are both idiomatic, and subject to individual preferences. The difference between them becomes important once you start using variable and command expansion, and then the question quickly ceases to be relevant.
That said, I mostly prefer to use {a b c}. It's more convenient when the literals are longer since I can break things over multiple lines without fussing around with backslash continuations. Other people will disagree with me; for them, the typing of [list…] reminds them strongly of what they intend to do with the data, and that's clearly of some mnemonic value.

Related

Tcl: Add special characters in a list

I would like add this : var mylinechart = `{ in a list
set myvar "var mylinechart = `\{"
> var mylinechart = `{
lappend mylist $myvar
> var\ mylinechart\ =\ `\{
the expected result is not that desired... I would like this :
{var mylinechart = `{}
What am I doing wrong ?
The tcl printer doesn't normally add brackets around an outer list, or list elements that aren't themselves lists. But if you have a multi-dimensional list, then you start to see them:
% set mylist [list a b c]
a b c
% lappend mylist [list $myvar]
a b c {var\ mylinechart\ =\ `\{}
mylist is now a list of four elements, the last of which is a list with a single element. It still backslashes all the spaces so the whole thing is treated as a single element. If you're doing something like writing to a file and don't want to see them, you can use puts on that element:
% puts [lindex $mylist 3 0]
var mylinechart = `{
The Tcl list formatter prefers to use neither braces nor backslashes, but if that doesn't work (perhaps because the element contains a space or other Tcl metacharacter) then it uses braces, but if that doesn't work (usually because the element has unbalanced braces) then it uses backslashes. Backslashes are the ugliest option, but work for anything.
Your example value has an unbalanced brace. That means when Tcl formats the list, it uses backslashes. That might be ugly, but it works and you can recover the value with lindex so it must be correct.
Tcl does not give you control over the format rules it chooses to use when it formats a list, at least not at the script level. (There's a little more control possible if you poke around at the C library level, but it's not advised and all you can ever really safely do is force things to become uglier. You can't safely make it not use backslashes.)
To reinforce, what you wanted, {var mylinechart = `{}, is not a well-formed list. (I'm putting it in double quotes below so I can easily enter it; that in itself is a clue that it's a bad thing.)
% set s "{var mylinechart = `{}"
{var mylinechart = `{}
% lindex $s 0
unmatched open brace in list

apparent inconsistency read/write variable

I'm learning about Tcl just now. I've seen just a bit of it, I see for instance to create a variable (and initialize it) you can do
set varname value
I am familiarizing with the fact that basically everything is a string, such as "value" above, but "varname" gets kind of a special treatment I guess because of the "set" built-in function, so varname is not interpreted as a string but rather as a name.
I can later on access the value with $varname, and this is fine to me, it is used to specify varname is not to be considered as a string.
I'm now reading about lists and a couple commands make me a bit confused
set colors {"aqua" "maroon" "cyan"}
puts "list length is [llength $colors]"
lappend colors "purple"
So clearly "lappend" is another one of such functions like set that can interpret the first argument as a name and not a string, but then why didn't they make it llength the same (no need for $)?
I'm thinking that it's just a convention that, in general, when you "read" a variable you need the $ while you don't for "writing".
A different look at the question: what Tcl commands are appropriate for list literals?
It's valid to count the elements of a list literal:
llength {my dog has fleas}
But it doesn't make sense to append a new element to a literal
lappend {my dog has fleas} and ticks
(That is actually valid Tcl, but it sets the odd variable ${my dog has fleas})
this is more sensible:
set mydog {my dog has fleas}
lappend mydog and ticks
Names are strings. Or rather a string is a name because it is used as a name. And $ in Tcl means “read this variable right now”, unlike in some other languages where it really means “here is a variable name”.
The $blah syntax for reading from a variable is convenient syntax that approximately stands in for doing [set blah] (with just one argument). For simple names, they become the same bytecode, but the $… form doesn't handle all the weird edge cases (usually with generated names) that the other one does. If a command (such as set, lappend, unset or incr) takes a variable name, it's because it is going to write to that variable and it will typically be documented to take a varName (variable name, of course) or something like that. Things that just read the value (e.g., llength or lindex) will take the value directly and not the name of a variable, and it is up to the caller to provide the value using whatever they want, perhaps $blah or [call something].
In particular, if you have:
proc ListRangeBy {from to {by 1}} {
set result {}
for {set x $from} {$x <= $to} {incr x $by} {
lappend result $x
}
return $result
}
then you can do:
llength [ListRangeBy 3 77 8]
and
set listVar [ListRangeBy 3 77 8]
llength $listVar
and get exactly the same value out of the llength. The llength doesn't need to know anything special about what is going on.

tcl scripts, struggling with [...] and [expr ...]

I can't understand how assignments and use of variables work in Tcl.
Namely:
If I do something like
set a 5
set b 10
and I do
set c [$a + $b]
Following what internet says:
You obtain the results of a command by placing the command in square
brackets ([]). This is the functional equivalent of the back single
quote (`) in sh programming, or using the return value of a function
in C.
So my statement should set c to 15, right?
If yes, what's the difference with
set c [expr $a + $b]
?
If no, what does that statement do?
Tcl's a really strict language at its core; it always follows the rules. For your case, we can therefore analyse it like this:
set c [$a + $b]
That's three words, set (i.e., the standard “write to a variable” command), c, and what we get from evaluating the contents of the brackets in [$a + $b]. That in turn is a script formed by a single command invocation with another three words, the contents of the a variable (5), +, and the contents of the b variable (10). That the values look like numbers is irrelevant: the rules are the same in all cases.
Since you probably haven't got a command called 5, that will give you an error. On the other hand, if you did this beforehand:
proc 5 {x y} {
return "flarblegarble fleek"
}
then your script would “work”, writing some (clearly defined) utter nonsense words into the c variable. If you want to evaluate a somewhat mathematical expression, you use the expr command; that's it's one job in life, to concatenate all its arguments (with a space between them) and evaluate the result as an expression using the documented little expression language that it understands.
You virtually always want to put braces around the expression, FWIW.
There are other ways to make what you wrote do what you expect, but don't do them. They're slow. OTOH, if you are willing to put the + first, you can make stuff go fast with minimum interference:
# Get extra commands available for Lisp-like math...
namespace path ::tcl::mathop
set c [+ $a $b]
If you're not a fan of Lisp-style prefix math, use expr. It's what most Tcl programmers do, after all.
set c [$a + $b]
Running the above command, you will get invalid command name "5" error message.
For mathematical operations, we should rely on expr only as Tcl treats everything as string.
set c [expr $a + $b]
In this case, the value of a and b is passed and addition is performed.
Here, it is always safe and recommended to brace the expressions as,
set c [expr {$a+$b}]
To avoid any possible surprises in the evaluation.
Update 1 :
In Tcl, everything is based on commands. It can a user-defined proc or existing built-in commands such as lindex. Using a bare-word of string will trigger a command call. Similarly, usage of [ and ] will also trigger the same.
In your case, $a replaced with the value of the variable a and since they are enclosed within square brackets, it triggers command call and since there is no command with the name 5, you are getting the error.

How tcl curly braces in ${variableName} is interpreted?

I am a newbie in TCL Programming. I was having confusion about curly braces, answer to this question tcl curly braces cleared most of my doubts.
I can understand $var, {var}, and {$var}, But recently I came across another use of curly braces, ${var}. How is this interpreted by TCL?
I have seen this is used when accessing variables in namespaces when namespaces name is in variable.
for example:
set x myNamespace ;#myNamespace is name of namespace
puts [set ${x}::var1] ;#var1 is variable in the namespace
It gives error when you don't use curly braces around 'x'.
And I also don't understand the difference between {a b c} and [list a b c], what is the difference in result of interpretation of these two commands by TCL interpretation.
elaborated explanation would be highly appreciated.
See rule 8 of the manual. It allows you to have variable names that might get mis-interpreted. For instance:
% set dotted.name 1
1
% puts $dotted.name
can't read "dotted": no such variable
% puts ${dotted.name}
1
Read section 8 carefully as it actually explains all this quite explicitly.
Update to answer edited question
In the example you provide using a namespace name in a variable you must consider section 8 part 1: a variable name includes letters, digits, underscores and namespace separators. This means that x::var1 is a valid variable name. So $x::var1 will attempt to dereference the var1 variable in the x namespace. As this is not what you meant, you must dereference your x variable separately. There are two ways to do this. You can either use the set command or the dollar operator.
set x myNamespace
puts [set ${x}::var1]
puts [set [set x]::var1]
The two puts statements are equivalent here with the second version showing an explicit separate pass to obtain the value of the x variable which is then substituted into the expression for the outer set command. The same occurs in the first version but just uses the grouping operator to restrict the effect of the dollar to the x variable name.

Tcl [list a b c] vs {a b c} is there a difference and in what context?

I'm playing around with Tcl and have found several scenarios where [list a b c] is interchangeable with {a b c}. What is the preferred method, and where does [list a b c] fail to match the behavior of {a b c}?
% set lista [list a b c]
a b c
% set listb {a b c}
a b c
% set b {1 2 3}
1 2 3
% set lista [list a $b c]
a {1 2 3} c
% set listb {a $b c}
a $b c
When you are building a list using literals, the two forms are equivalent. When you are using variables, the [list ...] form will expand the variable before placing it in the string and the {...} form will not.
Essentially, {...} treats whatever is inside of it as a single, continuous string; the special character $ is never interpreted. The [list ...] statement takes its arguments and concatenates them together, separated by spaces. Therefore, if the items you are working with are string literals and do not contain anything that needs to be interpreted, then the two forms are the same.
For literals, they're identical in all functional respects (other than that the straight literal form is slightly faster, of course). For non-literals, they're obviously doing different things (as bta says).
However, there's more to it than that. Let's dive deeper!
There are cases where you do not want to use the {…} or the "…" forms, and that's exactly when working with certain non-literals. In particular, if you are using tcom or Tcl/Java (i.e., Jacl or TclBlend) then you will be working with objects that do not obey Tcl's semantics properly. In particular, you'll have “fragile” objects attached to some of the values; if the Tcl_Obj containing the reference to the value has its type changed (“shimmered” in Tcl parlance) then the reference to the underlying COM or Java object will be irretrievably dropped and the garbage collector will delete the object before you're finished with it. Using the [list …] form to build lists (and list operations like lindex to retrieve) will ensure that these fragile internal representations are maintained correctly until you no longer need them.
For normal Tcl values, including those produced by most extension packages, you don't need to worry about this other than to note that using the non-lossy operations is also faster. If you want your code to be quick (who doesn't?) then [list] is your friend even when it is not necessary (which it often is).
The other case you want to pay attention to is when producing callbacks.
Often you want to do callbacks where some values are known at the point when the callback is created, and not otherwise stored in some variable that exists when the callback is executed. (I do this a lot with after, fileevent and trace, but there are lots of places where this is done.) Callback scripts that are created with list (or some other list-producing command) are faster than all the other alternatives because the Tcl script evaluation engine can prove that they have no substitutions and go directly to feeding the list elements into the command dispatcher. This is quite an advantage when you're just passing values to a procedure, which is considered good practice for callbacks.