On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Ben Woolley wrote:
>
> We now have very good automation tools that are not shells, like Python and
> Lua, so wouldn't it make sense to take a second look at shells that are more
> specific to command interpretation?
>
This looks fun to talk about.
I think any
python is not a "good automation tool".
> On Aug 13, 2016, at 9:26 AM, Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
> wrote:
>
> Hi rain1,
>
> Quoth ra...@openmailbox.org:
>> GNU Bash is 138227 lines of code. I wrote a simpler shell* in 800 lines:
>> https://notabug.org/rain1/s/
>>
>> *It is not a true POSIX shell. You can't run existing scripts with
> On Aug 13, 2016, at 4:31 AM, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
>
> IO redirection being done by separate programs, though, seems like a
> wrong decision. Streaming the data through a separate process is
> considerably less efficient than just setting a file descriptor to an
> open file, and not always
On 2016-08-13 12:31, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
Is there no support for 'splatting' a string into several strings? rc
has a coherent approach to this, in that each variable is not a string
but a list of strings. 'Splat' should be supported, but only when done
explicitly.
Yeah I believe rc is the
On 13 August 2016 at 12:31, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> IO redirection being done by separate programs, though, seems like a
> wrong decision. Streaming the data through a separate process is
> considerably less efficient than just setting a file descriptor to an
> open file, and not always equival
Hi,
I'm not quite sure about this specific design, but I do think there is
still work to be done in shell design. We've not quite got there yet,
I think.
On 12 August 2016 at 22:41, wrote:
> Tokenization [tokenizer.c]: Instead of the strange and complex way that
> normal shells work (where "$X"
On 2016-08-13 07:31, Ben Woolley wrote:
On Aug 12, 2016, at 2:41 PM, ra...@openmailbox.org wrote:
Hello!
GNU Bash is 138227 lines of code. I wrote a simpler shell* in 800
lines: https://notabug.org/rain1/s/
*It is not a true POSIX shell. You can't run existing scripts with it.
It's technica
> On Aug 12, 2016, at 2:41 PM, ra...@openmailbox.org wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> GNU Bash is 138227 lines of code. I wrote a simpler shell* in 800 lines:
> https://notabug.org/rain1/s/
>
> *It is not a true POSIX shell. You can't run existing scripts with it. It's
> technically just a command inte
On 2016-08-13 03:28, hiro wrote:
there already is a suckless shell, called rc. stupid you.
A new shell will have it's own use cases and might be a
perfect fit for certain projects, some cases might not
require shell scripting so the interpreter part is
unneeded.
Raiz
waiting for the day someone of you rewrites all the other stuff in 9base, too.
On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 01:45:48 +0100
wrote:
> On 2016-08-13 01:28, hiro wrote:
> > there already is a suckless shell, called rc. stupid
> > you.
>
> [rc-1.7.4]$ wc *
> 210651 5748 acinclude.m4
?
>1150 5297 41954 aclocal.m4
?
> 25 64397 addon.c
> 3113481
shut up if you know nothing.
cpu% wc -l *.[hc]
483 code.c
993 exec.c
76 exec.h
67 fns.h
233 getflags.c
7 getflags.h
261 glob.c
241 havefork.c
217 haventfork.c
152 here.c
266 io.c
27 io.h
388 lex.c
147 pcmd.c
71 pfnc.c
638 plan9.
On 2016-08-13 01:28, hiro wrote:
there already is a suckless shell, called rc. stupid you.
[rc-1.7.4]$ wc *
210651 5748 acinclude.m4
1150 5297 41954 aclocal.m4
25 64397 addon.c
31134816 addon.h
40352 2206 AUTHORS
558 1887 12048 builtins.c
there already is a suckless shell, called rc. stupid you.
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 23:51:46 +0100
wrote:
> On 2016-08-12 22:52, Mattias Andrée wrote:
> > Also, the names of shells conventionally end with
> > sh, just do go with ssh (which incidentally is not
> > a shell but ends with “sh” because the full name ends
> > with “shell”.)
> >
> > On Fri, 12 Aug
On 2016-08-12 22:52, Mattias Andrée wrote:
Also, the names of shells conventionally end with
sh, just do go with ssh (which incidentally is not
a shell but ends with “sh” because the full name ends
with “shell”.)
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 23:48:29 +0200
Mattias Andrée wrote:
Sorry for replying befo
Also, the names of shells conventionally end with
sh, just do go with ssh (which incidentally is not
a shell but ends with “sh” because the full name ends
with “shell”.)
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 23:48:29 +0200
Mattias Andrée wrote:
> Sorry for replying before reading, but I don't think a
> single-cha
Sorry for replying before reading, but I don't think a
single-character name is a good idea. Two-characters
should also be avoided, but it's acceptable. The number
of available names are severely limited and introduces
an unnecessarily high risk of collision. Short names,
and single-character name
Hello!
GNU Bash is 138227 lines of code. I wrote a simpler shell* in 800 lines:
https://notabug.org/rain1/s/
*It is not a true POSIX shell. You can't run existing scripts with it.
It's technically just a command interpreter.
With that out the way here's an overview of how it works:
Tokeniz
20 matches
Mail list logo
