that doesn't describe mash at all. my talk at IWP9 hinted on the functionality.
the first advice i was given when i started on inferno was not to port
everything in sight - think forward. fixing the awkward and backward
syntax and semantics of rc+mk, and the replication, was the
intention..
brucee
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 10:04 PM, roger peppe <rogpe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 November 2010 19:06, erik quanstrom <quans...@labs.coraid.com> wrote:
>>> > ('&', '&&', '||', if, '|', 'and '`{}') with something general
>>> > enough to replace mk, you'd be on to something.
>>>
>>> i did a mash-inspired version of mk as an inferno shell module once.
>>> it required no new syntax (although it could be confused by
>>> files named ":"...)
>>
>> what you did was very cool, but iirc this was in addition
>> to, not replacing the standard && || ... bits. one
>> could build pipelines and specify command order in one
>> unified way, no?
>
> well, all it knows about are commands, fds and environment
> variables. if, && and || are all defined externally.
>
> a "mkfile" using the sh mk module looked something like this:
>
> #!/dis/sh
> load mk
> metarule %.dis : %.b {
> limbo -gw $stem.b
> }
> TARGETS=x.dis y.dis z.dis
> rule -V all : $TARGETS {
> echo done
> }
> mk
>
> it'd be trivial to add a bit of syntactic sugar
> a la mash, to make the syntax more mk-like,
> but it seemed better just to port mk itself.
>
>
