Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 11:23:23 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee Cc: terry@lambert.org, hasty@rah.star-gate.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: project: editor Message-ID: <199705121823.LAA07896@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970512073233.21119A-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> from "Narvi" at May 12, 97 07:41:49 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I think that wksh has a number of significant advantes for this > > type of work: By this I meant "embeddable scripting engines". > > o It's the SVR4 answer to the same problem > > > > o Script portability across UNIX clone OS's > > > > o Legacy Bourne shell scripts will run with few changes > > *Legacy* Bourne shell scripts for a yet nonexistant document program 8-? Legacy bourne scripts that won't have to be changed much to GUI-ize them. > > o It's required for Open UNIX Standard compliance > > So we could have a Open Unix compiliant document program? We could have an Open UNIX compliant OS. > > The only real drawback is that there isn't a pd implementation (I > > admit that this is a whopper of a drawback, but a grammar-based > > set of changes in light of the wksh book shouldn't be too hard). > > Well, maybe I am a bit unimaginative, but I really can't imagine myself > writing shell (Bourne, wksh, etc.) scripts in a document program 8-( > I am afraid it wouldn't be something I (or even most people) would like. Well, I can't imagine myself writing TCL or PERL or Visual BASIC scripts in a document program, so we are probably even. 8-). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199705121823.LAA07896>