[#5218] Ruby Book Eng tl, ch1 question — Jon Babcock <jon@...>

13 messages 2000/10/02

[#5404] Object.foo, setters and so on — "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>

OK, here is what I think I know.

14 messages 2000/10/11

[#5425] Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — Jon Babcock <jon@...>

18 messages 2000/10/11
[#5427] RE: Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — OZAWA -Crouton- Sakuro <crouton@...> 2000/10/11

At Thu, 12 Oct 2000 03:49:46 +0900,

[#5429] Re: Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — Jon Babcock <jon@...> 2000/10/11

Thanks for the input.

[#5432] Re: Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — Yasushi Shoji <yashi@...> 2000/10/11

At Thu, 12 Oct 2000 04:53:41 +0900,

[#5516] Re: Some newbye question — ts <decoux@...>

>>>>> "D" == Davide Marchignoli <marchign@di.unipi.it> writes:

80 messages 2000/10/13
[#5531] Re: Some newbye question — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2000/10/14

Hi,

[#5544] Re: Some newbye question — Davide Marchignoli <marchign@...> 2000/10/15

On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#5576] Re: local variables (nested, in-block, parameters, etc.) — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2000/10/16

matz@zetabits.com (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:

[#5617] Re: local variables (nested, in-block, parameters, etc.) — "Brian F. Feldman" <green@...> 2000/10/16

Dave Thomas <Dave@thomases.com> wrote:

[#5705] Dynamic languages, SWOT ? — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>

There has been discussion on this list/group from time to time about

16 messages 2000/10/20
[#5712] Re: Dynamic languages, SWOT ? — Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@...> 2000/10/20

Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote:

[#5882] [RFC] Towards a new synchronisation primitive — hipster <hipster@...4all.nl>

Hello fellow rubyists,

21 messages 2000/10/26

[ruby-talk:5817] Re: Shells and Ruby

From: Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
Date: 2000-10-24 05:02:31 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5817
> I was wondering, maybe this has been discussed before and dismissed, how
> hard would it be to write a Unix/Linux shell whose language was Ruby, or a
> slight variant. Basically if performance wasn't an issue this could sit on top 
> of another shell (eg. bash/sh), and wrap commands, and any variance needed in 
> the syntax could be achieved via a preprocessor. I think some people
> are/were doing this with Perl, although I don't know how serious an attempt
> it is/was. I just think it would be very cool to have so much power in my
> command line.  Please tell me if I'm being crazy.

Hi,

what do you think of writing a 'shell' library for Ruby. This means: 
suppose you want to write a shell. you write a support library that
implements job control, redirection, etc.; but in the end you don't write
the real shell. the real shell, here, is Ruby, with the help of that
library. 

I think what sets shell languages apart is not the ability to start other
processes alone, but also to stop them / control them in general (bg fg
ctrl+z jobs), and bind them together and with files. syntactic
optimization is secondary to that, and might even hinder the integration
with code that is less shell-like (current ruby programming). 

matju



In This Thread

Prev Next