slang and slrn (was: Re: Fwd: status of slrn)

Jörg Sommer <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've the same feeling. I think the slrn binary should provide some core
> functionalities and everything more should be done in SLang macros. The
> user can load them or not.

The truth is the interpreter is not very well integrated into slrn.
When I wrote slrn I was more interested in testing the SLsmg routines
and added the interpreter in response to getting incompatible feature
requests.  I also made a big mistake by developing and then using the
command-line parser that is used to interpret the .slrnrc file.  I
should have simply made use of the much more powerful slang
interpreter.

This weekend I am going to work to better integrate the slang
interpreter into slrn and make it what I call a "conforming" slang
application.  That is, one that allows transparent access to the slsh
modules and library files.  Among other things, this will enable slrn
to make use of the slang debugger, profiler, as well as many of the
slang modules.  In fact, I hope to add a slang-backend to slrn to
allow one to read, e.g., RSS feeds, from slrn with the RSS reader
written in slang.  But that will require better integration of the
interpreter.

> But I think it's important to have many of these addons in the slrn
> distribution, maybe in /third-party or /contrib or /gate-to-hell.
> Otherwise I see the same happening like with jed that the development
> of the core and the addons go in different directions.

I do not see them going in different directions.  Rather, I see the
code at the jed-modes repository as complementary.  Do you have an
example where you feel that they are going in different directions?

Thanks,
--John

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/