On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Laurens Van Houtven <_...@lvh.io> wrote:
> Not aimed at anyone in particular, but if you are going to suggest a > particular language, can you please point to an interpreter that is easily > embeddable into fossil? That seems to be the problem with at least JS and > Python, and seems to be Lua's strong point. There's no point in discussing > the relative merits of languages if we can't actually reasonably *use that > language*. > That's one of the beauties of restructuring fossil as a library: we don't need to embed any language at all. Instead, they can be built on top of the library. Yes, we'll want/need one "standard" interpreter for unit test purposes, but that will "almost certainly" end up being TCL or jimtcl, simply for reasons of historical momentum. -- ----- 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
