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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham 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!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.hanau.net!noris.net!news2.arglkargh.de!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail From: Jacob Sparre Andersen Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada.Command_Line and wildcards Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 19:11:52 +0100 Organization: Jacob's private Usenet server Message-ID: 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> NNTP-Posting-Host: taasingegade.news.jacob-sparre.dk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: jacob-sparre.dk 1173550316 28253 85.82.239.166 (10 Mar 2007 18:11:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 18:11:56 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:HolH9gxBv/5TYGpToKfuq2RW7Ic= Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14452 Date: 2007-03-10T19:11:52+01:00 List-Id: Markus E Leypold wrote: > I admit that, but I find your use of "Unix" still problematic > here. First, the kernel itself doesn't know ynthiong about text > substitution. Second, text substitution is something implemented in > a lot of Unix tools (cpp, m4, sed, awk) and it is often exactly what > one needs to process text. But C, the system call interface and sh(1) are all a part of the Unix design and system. - Even if a part of the design is that some parts of it can be changed. We shouldn't ignore this. And in a historical context, this design is probably rather good. We should rather look at how we can use our experience with the system (and what we've built on top of it) to create an even better one. > I wouldn't want to use Ada as an interactive command language. 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. I'm not sure I would use OCaml as the basis. To me it seems too big and complicated for the purpose. But the shell (interactive command language) should support all the different kinds of interprocess communication that the underlying kernel supports. That doesn't quite seem to be the case with sh(1). >> Suggesting replacement parts for pieces of Unix really means >> suggesting to change its design. > > No. I do think you use the word design in rather too broad a > sense. Else we could never change ynthing without "changing the > design". > > One must perhaps live with the notion that no OS is just amonolithic > complex of design choices. It is not simply a "design change" if I > (user) change to another shell (that is designed to be user > replacable, BTW). Since sh(1) is a requirement in the POSIX standard, it is a change in the design to substitute sh(1) with something else (although it is a change the remaining system is designed to allow). Adding yet another user selectable shell to the system is on the other hand not something I consider a change in the design. Greetings, Jacob -- "The universe isn't for the likes of me to understand. I only work here."