On 4/20/06, erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed Apr 19 23:03:19 CDT 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I think Tcl has struck a nice balance here -- everything is a command > > taking a number of arguments. Or are you talking about a different > > sort of interface ? > > i mean the dynamic module interface. > > > > > > 2. what hooks are provided by the shell. the "es" shell provided a hook > > > for darn near every language construct there was. for example, it was > > > possible > > > to redefine globbing, piping, the if statement, etc. > > > > That is a bit too much, in my oppinion. I think what the 'core' shell > > is supposed to do is provide a nice glue for the rest of the dynamic > > functionality. Sort of like file system is a universal glue for every > > other application running on the system. I would say that this is the > > most challenging aspect of designing my dream 'shell' -- the glue is > > supposed to be easy enough for me to understand, yet powerful enough > > to express simple things in simple terms. Tcl comes pretty close > > to being that glue. > > give it a try: > ftp://ftp.sys.toronto.edu/pub/es/es-0.9-beta1.tar.gz > it is very interesting, if not completely successful. > > i'm probablly on my own in this, but tcl is just strange, and its > linux implementation never ceases to annoy, and it's way too big. > since when is \t anything other than whitespace? (python, unfortunately, did > the same thing). when i try to "man -k" on a system with tcl, > i get a hundred of useless tcl/tk commands. >
Nah, I'm not a fan of Tcl either really...
