From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun May 11 23:04:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA01294 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 11 May 1997 23:04:00 -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 XAA01283 for ; Sun, 11 May 1997 23:03:58 -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 XAA04624 for ; Sun, 11 May 1997 23:03:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199705120603.XAA04624@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 07:41:49 +0300." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 23:03:58 -0700 From: Amancio Hasty Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Okay with respect to scripts. I see three levels: 1. mark up language representation 2. style representation (book style, report style, etc..) 3. macro processor for doing things like bullets, tables, sections, etc... I hate to inflict users with such things as a macro processor whose syntax is tcl or shell like. Regards, Amancio >From The Desk Of Narvi : > > > 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 consideri ng > > > 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. > > > >