From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon May 12 11:51:28 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA27632
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 12 May 1997 11:51:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rah.star-gate.com (rah.star-gate.com [204.188.121.18])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA27627
          for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 12 May 1997 11:51:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rah.star-gate.com (localhost.star-gate.com [127.0.0.1])
	by rah.star-gate.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA11870
	for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 12 May 1997 11:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199705121851.LAA11870@rah.star-gate.com>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.9 8/22/96
To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: project: editor 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 12 May 1997 11:23:23 PDT."
             <199705121823.LAA07896@phaeton.artisoft.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 11:51:29 -0700
From: Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

I will provide a loadable module interface as an attempt to support
not just different script languages but also different functionality for
instance snmp functionality.

End of scripting wars for now .

More on the doc project later on today.

	Regards,
	Amancio



>From The Desk Of Terry Lambert :
> > > 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.