# [SVN] Passing variables to osascript, or other workaround?

Allan Odgaard allan at macromates.com
Thu May 12 03:33:23 UTC 2005

On May 12, 2005, at 0:53, Charilaos Skiadas wrote:

> Neat! It works great if I remove the ': $2' part above. If I have it > in though, it produces: > 200:201: syntax error: Expected “"” but found unknown token. (-2741) > > The part matched by$2 is basically the rest of the line where the
> \label occurs, so that the user has a context and can figure out
> better what label they want. So it is a whole LaTeX line, with lots of
> unescaped \'s. So I added the line:
> list="${list//\\\\/\\\\}" > above the res=osascript... > Now it works properly, but it took unacceptably long, I'm guessing > because the lines might be pretty long. Is there any way to speed it > up? Well, you could use sed to do the replacement, I did this benchmark (also for perl, ruby, and bash): time { for (( i = 0; i < 100; i++ )); do list='abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\a bed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abe d\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\ abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\ab ed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed\abed' list=$(sed -e <<<$list 's|\\|\\\\|g') done; } And you're certainly right about the shell being slow, here's the times on my 2.5 GHz G5: sed 1.020s perl 1.300s ruby 2.191s bash 11.008s Btw: if you want to experiment with this, just paste the loop into TM, select it, and press ctrl-R, then it'll run it within TM and output the result -- a bit easier than to play with this in a terminal window :) > I tried adding a line: list="${list:0:80}" before the above assignment
> to show only a reasonable part of the rest of the line (btw, can I
> combine them in one step? the obvious way didn't work.)

Bash rarely allow nested statements, what you can do is use commands
list=$(cut <<<$list -b-80|sed -e 's|\\|\\\\|g')

From the above benchmark, it seems that this also has better
performance ;)

Btw: I switched from ... to \$(...) because the former requires
escaping of \, and I switched from s/.../.../ to s|...|...| in the sed
substitution for cosmetic reasons.

> but that took me back to the previous error. Is there something else I
> might need to escape, maybe braces or something? (i.e. when I cut at
> the 80 characters, maybe I've left some braces unended?)

I don't think so -- but if you did the cut after escaping escapes, you
could cut in the middle of such an escape pair, and thus have a bad
string again.

> In terms of scope, this is to be used inside a \ref{} or an \eqref{}
> (can't remember if there are others). would the proper scope be
> text.latex, declaration.ref-or-label.latex or
> keyword.control.ref-or-label.latex ?

declaration.ref-or-label is most appropriate IMHO. The
keyowrd.control.ref-or-label would work, but only because the start
bracket is currently part of the keyword, so placing the caret just
after { would still give a scope of being in the keyword, but that
could change.

This of course assuming that the command is only useful inside a
\(eq)?ref, otherwise the scope should be text.latex. Limiting a scope
should mainly be done when it's an advantage, e.g. if you bind it to
'escape' then it's required that you put it inside the
declaration.ref-or-label scope, so that escape doesn't lose its value
outside this scope. But if you put it on some unused (for latex) key,
then there's probably little reason to not provide the feature in the
entire text.latex scope.

`