on Sun, 26 May 2013 12:55:33 +0200, Irek Szczesniak wrote: <snip>
> haven't you read Roland Mainz's comments about passing compound > variables via pipe or network sockets? ksh93 already has a powerful > (much more feature rich in what PowerShell can do) mechanism with > that, and only at the beginning or the end a conversion from or to > XML/JSON might be useful. In between the compound variable mechanism > is much faster and flexible. i read it, but before that i was unaware of compound variables, so i don't really know their capabilities. in roland's demo, though, it seemed rather like he was passing a struct (just data). in this regard, henk's comments, which you cited, are very interesting: "If you think about it, the concept of the unix command as a 'filter' is akin to functional programming; they consume input (stdin+parameters), produce output, and leave no side-effects." where he refers to functional programming, think first class functions. think currying. think objects as data plus functions that operate on that data. then combine them, rather like ocaml. is that what i want in a shell? i don't know, but it sure sounds like fun, which is a wonderful quality to have in computing, as well as utility. in the end, perhaps fun is what really sets unix apart. _______________________________________________ ast-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-users
