On 09/20/11 11:52, Stephan Beal wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Martin S. Weber <martin.we...@nist.gov <mailto:martin.we...@nist.gov>> wrote:Yes. It is one of my plans, the reasons I joined here, to extend fossil with tcl. Whether that's ought to be jimtcl (for size and embedding concerncs) or the i only suggest jim because it's already in the source tree (and it appears to be quite powerful, with lots of optional modules). And jimtcl is a one-file distribution, so physically the integration is trivial.
I know and like jim. I was around on the tclers chat when it was conceived :) There's one thing that I don't like about it now though, there's no clear compatibility statement wrt tcl itself, or at least none I could find. I'd like a table of all the tcl commands and their subcommands and a check-or-cross for their support in jimtcl... Without that, it's hard to decide which to take. Naturally, Tcl in itself is highly portable, and a good enough wrapper around exec (via the file command) to support wrappers/triggers portably. It's gonna be fun to hack this up.
On a side note, fossil should grow something to import artifacts-with-history from other projects/databases. Tcl itself is managed via fossil. If fossil could import properly, 3rd party software use could be handled way better imho...
-Martin _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
