Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 07:41:49 +0300 (EEST) From: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: project: editor Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970512073233.21119A-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> In-Reply-To: <199705111937.MAA06132@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 11 May 1997, Terry Lambert wrote: > > You are correct I do need a scripting language .The question is which one? > > > > Not sure that I like tcl for this sort of thing .. however I am considering > > it . The problem that I have with tcl for end users is that it is not > > an intuitive language nor is it well structured unless one uses something > > like tcl / incr. I have to think about it a little longer and explore > > other alternatives . > > 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? > > > 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. 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?Pine.BSF.3.96.970512073233.21119A-100000>