On Sun, 13 Dec 1998, Asger Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> Therefor I propose that we do this:
>
> Make Scheme the primary candidate language, in the form of a very small and
> thus bundable scheme, like SIOD. So we would declare Scheme the "official"
> scripting language, that all LyX come with.
It seems that most of us agreed with this.
> So what do you think? Should I download SIOD and try to embed it into
> 1.1? And then, over time, the simply Evil Scripting Language would be
> developed over time.
Yes, go for it. Note that most of what comes with the siod package are
examples and small applications; we should keep just what we need (as in
the siag package).
> The main problem remaining with this solution is to decide how to design the
> simple language. But since we have another language that seems to fit the
> needs of many developers, the disagreements would be managable, and a big
> conflict very unlikely to develop. If someone disagrees too much, we could
> disarm them by pointing to Scheme, which arguably solves all problems except
> for syntax.
Yes, but first we should have well integrated and tested our official
language. Then you (or another "masochist" ;) could make the "simple
language" in a weekend without introducing noise to the official part.
> The thing that would take the most energy would be to document it all.
Indeed.
I don't know what is your idea but I think that we should not have a
function for each lyx command but just few of them. The most important
could be:
(exec-lyx-command "<lyx command> [argument]")
or a shorter name. Some of the necessary new functions are those that
currently can't be done without the GUI. For the rest, scheme itself
is powerful enough.
All the stuff could be in a single class, similar to the lyx server in
that it has no reference to any gui or workarea object, just a lyxfunc.
In fact, after it's implementation, LyX could run in a batch, completely
uninteractive mode.
Greets,
Alejandro
