On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 14:45:24 -0500, William G Hatch wrote: > > > Is this at all related to Vincent's work? [1] > > > > [1]: https://github.com/stamourv/rash > > I had no idea that existed. (in my defense, I did google "racket > shell", "racket rash", etc before starting this) > > I'll have to look at it as well.
FWIW, the one thing that my `rash` really did was to put your $PATH in your Racket namespace. That's one of the aspects of bash that I think are really interesting and useful, and was the motivation for the project. That it's also a nice showcase for `#%app` is just gravy. :) The other aspect of bash that I find interesting, and was hoping to capture in `rash` was easy port redirection, pipelines, etc. bash makes simple patterns really easy. Racket is more flexible, but requires more scaffolding. I didn't find a design that would combine the simplicity of bash with Racket's syntax. Then there's also the implicit coercion story. Unix utilities basically all consume newline-separated strings. Racket functions typically need more specific kinds of inputs. So mixing the two together (which is really the point of having bash as a #lang) ended up requiring a lot of adapters. It's not clear to me how to get that without making the result as "ad-hoc" as bash itself, though. Anyway, just a few thoughts on the topic. Vincent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
