On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Jason Grout <jason-s...@creativetrax.com> wrote: > On 3/2/12 2:55 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote: >> >> I think sage foo ... should default to running bin/sage-foo (in the >> sage environment) if it exists, and treat foo as a file otherwise. >> Virtually no argument parsing (aside from understanding --) would be >> involved here, and the decision to use bash/python/... would be >> delegated to the subscripts. "sage sh ..." would be sufficient for the >> "-C" option suggested, but "sage gap" and "sage gp" etc. would be >> natural to have directly. "sage run" could be provided to treat its >> argument(s) as files too. > > > -1 to magic parsing of 'sage foo'. What if sage-foo was later added to > sage? Then things would break for people.
This is true regardless of the calling mechanism. Subcommands should be added with care. I wasn't proposing calling "foo" for any foo in the sage-environment path. > I like the idea of 'sage run foo' to run foo. How would that be added to a > script file, though? > > #!/path/to/sage/sage run > do some commands I think we still need to keep "sage path/file.sage" around. The hash-bang convention is convenient, but limited. - Robert -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
