On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:32 AM, dexen deVries <dexen.devr...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Friday 05 of November 2010 18:18:44 Nick LaForge wrote: > > > A honest question: what is the rationale for merging functionality of > > > make and shell into one? > > > > Use your imagination.... > > Tried, failed. > To me, make is a tool for generating an acyclic, directed graph of > dependencies between build steps from some explicit and some wildcard > rules > -- and then traversing it in a sensible order. How's that for daily use > shell? > > Why is a shell that can generate acyclic digraphs of dependencies bad? Someone clearly found a use for it at some point or it wouldn't have been done. I guess one could try to use make as an init system for services in a configuration, but I don't see why not having those features in a shell is better than having those features in a shell. I do not currently use mash, however, I wonder if it's suitable for a startup mechanism for services just after booting a kernel, to get stuff started in the right order, without lavish attempts at building up those dependencies in a script that can't make acyclic digraphs of dependencies make sense natively. > > Perhaps something about `doing a reasonable action for every target file > named > on the command line'? > The possibilities are finite! > > -- > dx > >
