Re: Lush as a shell

Hi Raymond,

> At what point do you decide that the commands should be in a Lush script as opposed
> to in shell command line syntax?
>
> It is possible in bash, for instance, to type everything that would go into a script
> directly onto the command line. Everything that is in a bash script is the same
> as the command line. Shouldn't Lush exhibit the same consistency?
>
> How much of the underlying Lush functionality should be useable from the command
> line?

It seems to me that this sort of distinction isn't really necessary;
it's easy enough to combine bash with Lush. We could, for example,
start a lushslave process and then simply replaces parentheses in the
script with calls to remote lush.

For example, if the script is something like this:
    for i in *; do (print (file-size "$i")); done

it would be translated to something like:
    lushslave &
    for i in *; do
        lush -e '(==> (new RemoteLush ''localhost'') exec (print
(file-size "$i")))';
    done

Yury


-------------------------------------------------------
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&kid3432&bid#0486&dat1642