On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Steven Schveighoffer <schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Might I suggest that this not be the case. I'd rather see a statement like > the following in the script (if you wish to do miniD by default): > > #!/bin/mdsh > %shell.setMode(scripted) > > // and to set it back > shell.setMode(interactive) Sadly that would make the lexical/semantic passes of the compiler dependent upon the semantic analysis. Beyond that, even - it'd require that the code be compiled and executed before you knew how to parse it. Sounds like Perl. However... > Just my opinion. I often try out individual lines of a script to see what's > happening as a form of debugging, it would be maddening to have to insert % > everywhere (for those cases where my script file is mostly shell-style > commands). How about something like: %{ // lots of bash-style commands! } That is, an entire brace-block in which the default parsing mode is bash mode? > My intuition tells me that having things execute differently depending on > whether it's scripted or interactive is going to cause bug reports... It's not that it's executing differently; it's just parsed differently, with a different "reasonable default" for interactive vs. batch mode. I'm sure people might complain but meh :P