(haven't read the thread)
There's some things that rc cannot into:
- break/continue (well, perhabs I can do it a ugly way)
- sane user interface (rlwrap rc won't give you THE TRUE POWER OF AUTOCOMPLETE)
- *nix standarts (no one wants to install plan9port or even 9base only
for running a script)
Tha
> works here:
> ; for(i in 1 2 3){echo $i;break}
> 1
Don't work for my 9base rc. Strange.
> continue can be replaced by slightly rewriting your code
Ok. Anyway, no one will write so huge and complicated code (like
sorcery from Source Mage GNU/Linux) in rc.
2012/9/3 Rudolf Sykora :
> I too believe that unless the mechanism of autocomplete is well-enough
> resolved, rc won't work for many people. I understand the reasons why
> readline is not in the shell, but on the other hand I often get angry
> when I can't autocomplete.
Some users are lazy. They do
> rc in go
Also, some extensions could be useful:
* Inferno shell style local variables with := statement
* <> $file { ... } statement
* <>{ ... } statement, which returns both input and output pipes of command
> syntax is: var=val cmd
Sure, foo=() bar=() baz=() { ... } works, but that's not very practical.
> ? pipes aren't first-class language elements.
Well, they are files:
; foo=>{cat} ; echo $foo
/dev/fd/6
(linux)
I'm talking about something, that returns list with input and output
fd to a com
With := you can define locale variable where you need it.
That's like pascal style (where you define all variables before the
code) versus c style (where you define variables with code).
Not critical, but there is a practical issue.
2013/5/1 erik quanstrom :
> On Tue Apr 30 18:50:42 EDT 2013, gle
