> > -- 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.
it is silly bloat if it's not an essential part of the shell.
but (as andrey has noted) if you were to replace the
machinery behind these normal shell dag builders
('&', '&&', '||', if, '|', 'and '`{}') with something general
enough to replace mk, you'd be on to something.
personally, i think getting the syntax right would be
the hard part.
> 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.
that's been done with mk for linux by a rose hullman
student. it was faster than some of the fancy purpose-
built tools due to better parallism. see the list archives.
- erik
