On 09/20/11 12:07, Konstantin Khomoutov wrote:
Not that I ever had any need to touch either th1 or jimtcl, but I'd like to ask an obligatory question: what are the current th1's shortcomings so that replacing it with something else is needed?
It's no general programming language. It is modeled after Tcl, but implements only a very tiny subset of the language. What Th1 is doing can be done as well by a full-blown programming language. Having one of the latter integrated with fossil would also mean that you can call fossil from the language (and not only the other way around). Which would enable you to integrate fossil into more software written in that language. Choosing a portable language like Tcl, which supports portable path names, program execution etc., has the benefit that then you can implement hooks/triggers as calls to tcl procedures, which then may (portably) call external programs if they so wish, or use existing, stable and featureful libraries for performing the checks/actions they wish to perform.
-Martin _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
