On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:20:32 -0400 "Martin S. Weber" <martin.we...@nist.gov> wrote:
> > Not that I ever had any need to touch either th1 or jimtcl, but I'd > > like to ask an obligatory question: what are the current th1's > > shortcomings so that replacing it with something else is needed? > > It's no general programming language. It is modeled after Tcl, but > implements only a very tiny subset of the language. What Th1 is doing > can be done as well by a full-blown programming language. Having one > of the latter integrated with fossil would also mean that you can > call fossil from the language (and not only the other way around). > Which would enable you to integrate fossil into more software written > in that language. Choosing a portable language like Tcl, which > supports portable path names, program execution etc., has the benefit > that then you can implement hooks/triggers as calls to tcl > procedures, which then may (portably) call external programs if they > so wish, or use existing, stable and featureful libraries for > performing the checks/actions they wish to perform. Well, my question was actually a veiled uneasy feeling about possible code bloat and feature creep. While I *am* a Tcl aficionado, for me, one of the Fossil's selling points is its self-containment and a minimal set of dependencies. Won't we get another Mercurial? _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
