From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Neil Jerram Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: proposal: enhance and rename guile-tools Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:50:52 +0000 Message-ID: <87ipvcf8hv.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> References: <87ipvdqt69.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1300744324 19733 80.91.229.12 (21 Mar 2011 21:52:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:52:04 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: Andy Wingo Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 21 22:52:00 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q1n14-0004Dm-O8 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 22:51:58 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49996 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q1n14-0006PW-CH for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:51:58 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=52767 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q1n0o-0006Jg-NA for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:51:46 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q1n0k-0005tL-GQ for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:51:42 -0400 Original-Received: from mail3.uklinux.net ([80.84.72.33]:41435) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q1n0k-0005fU-BL for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:51:38 -0400 Original-Received: from arudy (unknown [78.149.125.161]) by mail3.uklinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5816E1F664C; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:51:00 +0000 (GMT) Original-Received: from neil-laptop (unknown [192.168.11.4]) by arudy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 990243801E; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:50:53 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: (Andy Wingo's message of "Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:28:40 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4-2.6 X-Received-From: 80.84.72.33 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:11948 Archived-At: Andy Wingo writes: > This is fun :) > > Here are a few threads the PLT folk had: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.scheme.plt.devel/2540 > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.scheme.plt.devel/2693/focus=2715 > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.scheme.plt.devel/2775 Well indeed, that pretty much covers the problem space, including my thought above. Some further Guile-specific thoughts, in no particular order. - "gel" is short; and it's the name of Guile before it was Guile; and suggests sticking things together; and AFAIK isn't already being used for anything else; and has similar key positions as "gdo", so is equally easy to type. - FWIW, the current differences between 'guile-tools THING . ARGS' and 'guile -e "(@@ (scripts THING) main)" -- . ARGS" appear to be that 1. the guile command eventually does (main (cons "guile" ARGS)), whereas guile-tools does (main . ARGS) (aka (apply main ARGS)) 2. the guile command runs the REPL afterwards. - I think I might find guile-tools (as is) less bothering if its built-in commands (help, version and list) were rewritten as scripts themselves. Then it would be clearer that the remaining code in guile-tools was just implementing the main-invocation convention for scripts/*. (Incidentally I have a patch pending for scripts/README, to remove some of the statements about that convention that are no longer true.) On the overall point, of having a separate name instead of just "guile", I think it just comes down to the observation that "because the `git' experience seems definitive". And I agree that it's hard to argue with that. Best wishes for reaching a decision on this! Neil