| 1 |
Sure could. Can see the logic of the argument. And then there could |
| 2 |
be the implementation of a "*.psh" for a python-lang shell script. Just |
| 3 |
ideas, but this could be an option too. Then we are starting to address |
| 4 |
script files and runtime shell interaction. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Anyone have any thoughts on how to get the shell to accept Python |
| 7 |
commands/arguments/statements and what-not in runtime from the |
| 8 |
prompt? Would it be a big undertaking to use C-level translation of a |
| 9 |
new set of Python macros/symbols passed to the the kernel? I |
| 10 |
suppose that a decision at that point would involve some consideration |
| 11 |
of whether the objective was to incorporate the Python languages itself |
| 12 |
(to greater or lesser extent) into the shell or whether it was the syntax |
| 13 |
and structure of Python that was to be *lifted*. Another way to see it |
| 14 |
would be the potential for bloating scripts with *import*s as a result of |
| 15 |
Python languages transplantation on the one hand, while having such |
| 16 |
useful things as f.tell() and f.seek() available on the other hand. If the |
| 17 |
syntax were incorporated into the shell, would there be a neat way of |
| 18 |
by-passing the need for a full-blown python interpreter? I think this |
| 19 |
could be worth some serious attention, but I just wonder if anyone has |
| 20 |
any cool ideas or some time to share on this admittedly vague (so far) |
| 21 |
possibility. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
On 16 Apr 2003 at 1:25, Jeff Rose wrote: |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> Could you use a hybrid of both bash scripts and python by using the |
| 28 |
> '-c' argument to run single python commands? |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> -Jeff |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives