[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Implement %{body:...} built-in for retrieving the literal macro body (#1064)

[Panu Matilainen]

Some open questions:
- Should the argument be expanded first, like doFoo() does? Using the literal value has its pros but I guess its cons too.
- Is raising an error on undefined macro a reasonable thing to do? If not, what should it do on undefined macros?

I was also tempted to add %{opts:...} which would return the option declaration string (if any), but there's no direct way to distinguish between no value (ie non-parametric macro) and empty string (parametric macro which doesn't take any options) in the return value, so it'd need some other approach.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1064#issuecomment-584583853
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/attachments/20200211/74461014/attachment.html>