On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Laurens Van Houtven <_...@lvh.io> wrote:
> Hi, > > While, ceteris paribus, I'd certainly prefer Python, I definitely > understand that embedding CPython may be more trouble than it's worth. If > you are going to embed *something*, I'd vote for a langauge explicitly > designed with that purpose in mind, say, Lua. > Python is a very popular choice, but AFAIK none of the fossil devs use it ;). There _is_ a choice of intepreters (i've also got my own i'd like to use) but TCL "would seem to be" the best fit, given fossil's history. LUA is small, well-established, and portable but also total alien to most people (myself included). All that said: if the core library is designed properly then any number of script bindings can be attached to it. (e.g. sqlite has at least 10 or 12 script bindings out there.) However, if this is to happen, I really do think that Fossil shouldn't have > more than one embedded dynamic language. So, either we do everything with > TH1, or we have something that replaces TH1... > i spent lots of time last summer trying to get th1 to do more than it currently does. The main problem with it is that it cannot report error location information, so if you have a 20-line script and a typo on line 18, then you get to search through the first 18 lines to try to find the mistake. th1 quickly becomes unmanageable for larger scripts. Definitely a huge +1 for hooks, though; I'd be perfectly happy with > something that gets passed to system(3)... > Maybe the shell "should" be the script interface language. But that of course rules out usage on Windows, which would upset a great number of people (not me ;). i think a scripting language is our only realistic/portable option for hooks. -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
