I am going through the Tcl tutorial and the lappend operator is returning unexpected results.
I am running this on F5 load-balancing hardware's command line interface. Here is the relevant system info:
~ \# cat /proc/version
Linux version 2.6.32-431.56.1.el6.f5.x86_64 (f5cm@build19) (gcc version 4.4.7 20120313 (Red Hat 4.4.7-3) (GCC) ) #1 SMP Wed Jun 8 11:41:48 PDT 2016
% puts $tcl_version
8.5
I attempted every permutation of variable grouping I could think of, and I was still unable to get results that I expect. It appears as though there is a buffer that is holding on to all the results of the command: 'puts' command and using it in the 'lappend' command. Here is the lines I executed. The first few 'puts' are just to show that nothing has been initialized yet:
% puts $l1
can't read "l1": no such variable
% puts $l2
can't read "l2": no such variable
% puts $l3
can't read "l3": no such variable
% puts $l4
can't read "l4": no such variable
% puts $l5
can't read "l5": no such variable
% set l1 { {item 1} {item 2} {item 3} }
{item 1} {item 2} {item 3}
% set l2 { {item 4} {item 5} {item 6} }
{item 4} {item 5} {item 6}
% set l3 [concat $l1 $l2]
{item 1} {item 2} {item 3} {item 4} {item 5} {item 6}
#things working as expected here
% puts $l3
{item 1} {item 2} {item 3} {item 4} {item 5} {item 6}
#this is where things start to get squirrelly. I would expect this to return the result of $l1 concat with $l2 and the result stored in $l1
% lappend $l1 $l2
{ {item 4} {item 5} {item 6} }
#as you can see, it appears to return the second argument when that argument is a list.
% lappend $l2 $l1
{ {item 1} {item 2} {item 3} }
# $l1 remains unchanged. at the very least, according to the documentation,
# I would expect that second item would be treated as a single entity
# when it is a list, and that the fourth item in '% lappend $l2 $l1' would be $l1
% puts $l1
{item 1} {item 2} {item 3}
#neither $l2 nor $l1 are modified as the result of the 'lappend' command.
% puts $l2
{item 4} {item 5} {item 6}
#more squirrelly-ness. when the arguments being passed are individual, it seems as though the last call to 'puts' is what 'lappend' uses for its first argument. this is confirmed on the last 3 commands below. **strong text**
% lappend $l1 "a" "b" "c"
{ {item 4} {item 5} {item 6} } a b c
% puts $l1
{item 1} {item 2} {item 3}
% lappend "$l1" "$l2"
**{ {item 4} {item 5} {item 6} } a b c { {item 4} {item 5} {item 6} }**
% puts $l1
{item 1} {item 2} {item 3}
% puts $l2
{item 4} {item 5} {item 6}
% set l4 [lappend $l1 $l2]
**{ {item 4} {item 5} {item 6} } a b c { {item 4} {item 5} {item 6} } { {item 4}
{item 5} {item 6} }**
% puts $l4
{ {item 4} {item 5} {item 6} } a b c { {item 4} {item 5} {item 6} } { {item 4}
{item 5} {item 6} }
# confirmed. 'lappend' is using last call to 'puts' as its argument for it's first argument. this can't be intended behavior right?
% puts $l1
{item 1} {item 2} {item 3}
% set l5 [lappend $l2 "a" "b" "c"]
{ {item 1} {item 2} {item 3} } a b c
% puts $l2
{item 4} {item 5} {item 6}
I can't imagine that this behavior is intended.
Here's how I would imagine this should work:
#should return something like [$list1, [$list2]] or something like concat $list1 $list2
% lappend $list1 $list2
#should return each item concatenated to the end of $list1
% lappend $list1 "a" "b" "c"
If the answer is that lappend does not modify the first argument in place, and I have to use a set command to save the results of the lappend command, that is fine; However, the lappend command does not appear to be behaving in a consistent manner.
Thanks in advance for any help/insight.