Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> writes:
> This is fun :)
>
> Here are a few threads the PLT folk had:
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.scheme.plt.devel/2540
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.scheme.plt.devel/2693/focus=2715
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.scheme.plt.devel/2775
Well indeed, that pretty much covers the problem space, including my
thought above.
Some further Guile-specific thoughts, in no particular order.
- "gel" is short; and it's the name of Guile before it was Guile; and
suggests sticking things together; and AFAIK isn't already being used
for anything else; and has similar key positions as "gdo", so is
equally easy to type.
- FWIW, the current differences between 'guile-tools THING . ARGS' and
'guile -e "(@@ (scripts THING) main)" -- . ARGS" appear to be that
1. the guile command eventually does (main (cons "guile" ARGS)),
whereas guile-tools does (main . ARGS) (aka (apply main ARGS))
2. the guile command runs the REPL afterwards.
- I think I might find guile-tools (as is) less bothering if its
built-in commands (help, version and list) were rewritten as scripts
themselves. Then it would be clearer that the remaining code in
guile-tools was just implementing the main-invocation convention for
scripts/*.
(Incidentally I have a patch pending for scripts/README, to remove some
of the statements about that convention that are no longer true.)
On the overall point, of having a separate name instead of just "guile",
I think it just comes down to the observation that "because the `git'
experience seems definitive". And I agree that it's hard to argue with
that.
Best wishes for reaching a decision on this!
Neil
