Re: Lush name meaning

Hi Yann,

> [snip]
> Turning Lush into an actual command line shell would not be
> very complicated.
> 

The current meaning of Lush can still apply in the long run if its use is more
synonymous with normal shells, something I would really like to see happen. 

Look at what the tclsh (Tcl shell) does, lets commands fall through to the underlying
shell when it does not understand them. That's interesting, but I don't think it 
would play well with the Lush REPL. It's not absolutely necessary, although I
believe it would make Lush more appealing to system/network administrator types.

Lush already has a number of commands for working like a shell or with the filesystem,
but currently there is a naming conflict with a few UNIX utilities (e.g. df, set, ?)
and commands require a string for parameter passing. There is the #$<shellcmd>,
but it doesn't work for me right now (?). 

I haven't look at it for a while, but I did manage to get around the string for parameter
passing. I made an RPM command which I can invoke, for example, as

? (rpm -qi <rpm-package>)

That works, but I did not take it too far. 

Being able to invoke shell commands like that or in the same way with #$ 
(e.g. #$ rpm -qi <rpm-package>) goes some way to making shell programming
easier and less encumbered in Lush. Perhaps a particular namespace, package,
or operational mode is useful in this situation.

Raymond

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642