From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,e219d94b946dfc26 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.germany.com!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Subject: Re: Ada.Command_Line and wildcards Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de Organization: cbb software GmbH References: <45dcaed8_6@news.bluewin.ch> <1172132169.423514.271890@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com> <545bgvF1ttrphU1@mid.individual.net> <1495406.QZvfpqijrQ@linux1.krischik.com> <6dy7mn3hhu.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <1172328891.5496.62.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1173096982.3712.37.camel@localhost> <8utzwzzv0v.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <1173185771.11841.69.camel@localhost> <11wk29zr0.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <1173305192.29628.82.camel@localhost> <1173447204.5618.131.camel@localhost.localdomain> <8g649apcio.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 19:22:52 +0100 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Date: 09 Mar 2007 19:22:38 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: c922cf27.newsspool1.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=BV3OI`a66V^1`E>oC;JXEZic==]BZ:af^4Fo<]lROoRQFl8W>\BH3YRWG30a1gD7 On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:11:59 +0100, Markus E Leypold wrote: > I wouldn't want to use Ada as an interactive command language. Why not? I never could understand why anybody would need phyton to configure Ada projects... But "interactive command language" is nonsense in these days. There exist far better ways of interaction with human beings than command languages. They are a legacy of teleprinters. > There > are, I think, ways to get (1) type safety, (2) proper quoting without > too much overhead. I, personally, would built a new generation shell > system on, ahem, OCaml, because of the type interference and because > functional composition might take the part pipes have played in the > past. Something like > > dir "/etc/fstab" | dir_purge (fun f -> newer_than (2006,08,11) f.date ) | flatten | print dir_entry_long Huh, but the above looks quite untyped. A properly typed object named "fstab" would not need special "dir" to enumerate its members. Even less it would need pipes to communicate its members to procedures. It already has these members in it. And why do you construct a new set before printing, if you have closures? The same old flawed UNIX ideology? (:-)) -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de