William & Norman, as much as I give credit to scsh, I just think that taking clues from scsh is enough. One could expand surface syntax into William’s pipe library for example.
The irony is of course that scsh’s start-up time was so bad back then, that we couldn’t use it for anything real. — Matthias > On Aug 21, 2016, at 4:46 PM, Norman Gray <nor...@astro.gla.ac.uk> wrote: > > > William, hello. > > On 20 Aug 2016, at 23:23, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > >> You may wish to read up on scsh. While it was way ahead of its >> time, Olin Shivers made the syntax as natural as possible so it >> would be quickly useful to people used to basic shell scripting >> syntax. After all, this syntax has a 40+ history and shouldn’t be >> thrown out. > > What Matthias said... > > I think that Olin Shivers made a lot of excellent syntactical decisions when > designing scsh -- in particular his syntax for regular expressions and for > extended process forms -- to the extent that if one were simply to > reimplement the scsh syntax in Racket, that would be an excellent departure > point. This is not to dispute your own syntactical choices, but in an > enterprise like this, scsh would be the elephant in the room. > > There have been a couple of attempts to support the scsh syntax in Racket, > and the scsh code is still under active, though rather low-level, maintenance > <https://github.com/scheme/scsh>. Incidentally, scsh does start up very > quickly, which is an attractive feature. > > And this enthusiasm isn't just because scsh was the first Scheme > implementation I spent serious time with (*wipes wistful tear*). > > Best wishes, > > Norman > > > -- > Norman Gray : https://nxg.me.uk > SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
