From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: tomas@fabula.de Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: guile -s is it necessary? Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:51:03 +0200 Sender: guile-user-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <20021016075103.GA5224@www> References: <20021015122146.GA418@www> <87wuojz8i6.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1034973474 2807 80.91.224.249 (18 Oct 2002 20:37:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 20:37:54 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 182dlQ-0000S2-00 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 22:30:33 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 182dkD-00022m-00; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:29:17 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 182diG-0001Mf-00 for guile-user@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:27:16 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 182diC-0001ME-00 for guile-user@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:27:15 -0400 Original-Received: from gnudist.gnu.org ([199.232.41.7]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 182d5Y-00076S-02 for guile-user@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 15:47:16 -0400 Original-Received: from www.elogos.de ([212.18.192.92]) by gnudist.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 181itT-0003vs-00 for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 03:47:04 -0400 Original-Received: by www.elogos.de (Postfix, from userid 5002) id 6D1221049BA; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:51:03 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: Rob Browning Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87wuojz8i6.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i Errors-To: guile-user-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:1207 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user:1207 On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 04:40:01PM -0500, Rob Browning wrote: > tomas@fabula.de writes: > > > Note that the second form is not only convenient on the > > command line but also simplifies your trustworthy hash-bang > > line. As far as I know, unadorned arguments are not yet > > used in guile, so this would be a backward-compatible > > embellishment/enuglyment. > > What about things like: > > guile -s foo.scm arg-to-foo another-arg-to-foo Hmmm. First non-option argument would be the script name, the rest is passed to it (the script) as arguments (that'd mean that you must pass guile-specific switches *before* the first non-option argument. This would again match the two BigPee's behaviour, whether this be considered a Good Thing or not ;) > or > > guile -e main -s foo.scm arg-to-foo another-arg-to-foo Both BigPee's know a switch like that for an expression to be evaluated. Perl (-e) takes several of them and a script on top of that, Python just one (-c) and terminates options processing (matching the more cautious nature of Pythoners in general ;^) I think guile's -e is special in that it is `out of order', first loading the script and then calling the function passed as argument; so the more exact correspondend to Perl's -e and Python's -c would be guile's -c -- but that wouldn't change the `syntax' of the command line. Thanks -- tomas _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user