On 5 November 2010 18:14, erik quanstrom <quans...@labs.coraid.com> wrote:
>> > -- and then traversing it in a sensible order. How's that for daily use
>> > shell?
>> >
>> >
>> Why is a shell that can generate acyclic digraphs of dependencies bad?
>> Someone clearly found a use for it at some point or it wouldn't have been
>> done.
>
> it is silly bloat if it's not an essential part of the shell.
> but (as andrey has noted) if you were to replace the
> machinery behind these normal shell dag builders
> ('&', '&&', '||', if, '|', 'and '`{}') with something general
> enough to replace mk, you'd be on to something.
i did a mash-inspired version of mk as an inferno shell module once.
it required no new syntax (although it could be confused by
files named ":"...)
part of the problem was that it's not that useful to have
a "mkfile"-like syntax that's only understood on one system.
we ended up porting mk.
