Proposal: allow "guile foo.scm"

Proposal: allow "guile foo.scm"

[Andy Wingo]

Hey all,

What do you think of allowing guile to be run as "guile foo.scm"? The
proposal is for it to be the same as "guile -s foo.scm". This would
allow the #! sequence to be shorter, e.g.

#! /usr/bin/env guile
!#
...

instead of

#! /bin/sh
exec guile -s $0 "$@"
!#

assuming you want to find `guile' in the path, of course.

Thoughts?
-- 
Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com>
http://ambient.2y.net/wingo/


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Proposal: allow "guile foo.scm"

[Greg Troxel]

  What do you think of allowing guile to be run as "guile foo.scm"?

I think it makes sense; /bin/sh acts like this.   Reading 'guile
--help', this could currently only start up a guile with foo.scm in
(command-line), but it doesn't.

But, I think your example fails to pass arguments to the guile
process.  Do you mean to include $0 $@?  Why can't you do

#! /usr/bin/env guile -s $0 "$@"
!#

-- 
        Greg Troxel <gdt@ir.bbn.com>


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Proposal: allow "guile foo.scm"

[Paul Jarc]

>> What do you think of allowing guile to be run as "guile foo.scm"?

This has come up before.  It may already be in CVS; I don't remember.

Greg Troxel <gdt@ir.bbn.com> wrote:
> But, I think your example fails to pass arguments to the guile
> process.

The kernel supplies the arguments.  Try it with "#!/usr/bin/env echo".

> Do you mean to include $0 $@?  Why can't you do
>
> #! /usr/bin/env guile -s $0 "$@"
> !#

Only one argument (in this case, "guile") can be included in the #!
line, or else you'll get different behavior on different platforms.
Some would give you a single argument containing 'guile -s $0 "$@"';
some would give you a just "guile"; perhaps there are some that would
give you "guile", "-s", "$0", and '"$@"' as separate arguments.  But
none of them will substitute the appropriate values for $0 and $@,
because this line is interpreted by the kernel, not the shell.


paul


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Proposal: allow "guile foo.scm"

[Jose A. Ortega Ruiz]

Greg Troxel <gdt@ir.bbn.com> writes:

>   What do you think of allowing guile to be run as "guile foo.scm"?
>
> I think it makes sense; /bin/sh acts like this.   Reading 'guile
> --help', this could currently only start up a guile with foo.scm in
> (command-line), but it doesn't.
>
> But, I think your example fails to pass arguments to the guile
> process.  Do you mean to include $0 $@?  Why can't you do
>
> #! /usr/bin/env guile -s $0 "$@"
> !#
>

IMHO, the best way would be to support SRFI-22 (Running Scheme scripts
in Unix, http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-22/srfi-22.html), which calls a
procedure named main in the body of a script starting with

#!/usr/bin/env guile

after evaluating the body, passing to it as arguments the provided
command line ones [1]. Besides being a simple approach, it would be make
live easier for people writing code intended for multiple schemes.

Just my .02 euros,
jao

Footnotes: 
[1]  Actually, i'm oversimplifying here: the SRFI suggests also
concrete names for the interpreter (instead of just 'guile'),
according to its compliance to RnRS.

-- 
If people do not believe that mathematics is simple, it is only
because they do not realize how complicated life is. 
- John von Neumann


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Proposal: allow "guile foo.scm"

[Paul Jarc]

"Jose A. Ortega Ruiz" <jao@gnu.org> wrote:
> IMHO, the best way would be to support SRFI-22 (Running Scheme scripts
> in Unix, http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-22/srfi-22.html),

This has also come up before.  IIRC, the consensus (or at least one of
the suggestions) was that if this were to be supported at all, it
should be in a separate binary, not guile itself (for backwards
compatibility, and because guile's #!...!# mechanism is more
flexible).

> [1]  Actually, i'm oversimplifying here: the SRFI suggests also
> concrete names for the interpreter (instead of just 'guile'),
> according to its compliance to RnRS.

Another reason to make it a separate binary, then.


paul


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Proposal: allow "guile foo.scm"

[Neil Jerram]

Andy Wingo wrote:

>Hey all,
>
>What do you think of allowing guile to be run as "guile foo.scm"? The
>proposal is for it to be the same as "guile -s foo.scm". This would
>allow the #! sequence to be shorter, e.g.
>
>#! /usr/bin/env guile
>!#
>...
>
>instead of
>
>#! /bin/sh
>exec guile -s $0 "$@"
>!#
>
>assuming you want to find `guile' in the path, of course.
>
>Thoughts?
>  
>
This in already in CVS HEAD (since August 2003), so will be in 1.8 one day.

    Neil




_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Proposal: allow "guile foo.scm"

[Marius Vollmer]

prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes:

>>> What do you think of allowing guile to be run as "guile foo.scm"?
>
> This has come up before.  It may already be in CVS; I don't remember.

It is:

2003-08-30  Neil Jerram  <neil@ossau.uklinux.net>

	* script.c (scm_compile_shell_switches): Make -s switch optional
	if file to be loaded does not begin with a `-'.  (Thanks to Aaron
	VanDevender for the patch!)


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel