Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 17:25:59 +0300 From: Ruslan Shevchenko <rssh@cki.ipri.kiev.ua> To: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee> Cc: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>, Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: project: editor Message-ID: <33772877.3D26@cki.ipri.kiev.ua> References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970512073233.21119A-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Narvi wrote: > > I think that wksh has a number of significant advantes for this > > type of work: > > > > 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-? > > > > > o It's required for Open UNIX Standard compliance > > So we could have a Open Unix compiliant document program? > It must be wary good. > > > > > > 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. Yes,in addition must be some stupid sample tool. (in style cpp or m4) > > Sander > > > > > Regards, > > 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?33772877.3D26>