[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Proposal] Why not add a "shell" procedure?

From: Nala Ginrut
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Why not add a "shell" procedure?
Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 23:04:18 +0800

Hmm..."pwd" and "sed" are just examples I showed how convenient this
"shell" could be.
But I missed "pwd" should be implemented by "getcwd".
Anyway, my aim is not to implement "pwd" or "sed", but the "shell"
alike in Ruby.

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Thien-Thi Nguyen <address@hidden> wrote:
> () Nala Ginrut <address@hidden>
> () Sat, 12 May 2012 20:30:21 +0800
>   (pwd)
>   ==> "/home/nalaginrut/Project/gnulib-20100109+stable"
>   Any comment?
> For this particular case, you can use instead ‘getcwd’, which
> is builtin.  See also ‘shell-command->string’ and friends:
> Tangentially, Guile 1.4.x has "guile-tools gxsed", a sed
> implementation in Scheme:
> It needs some work to be compatible w/ Guile 1.8 and 2.0
> (i.e., to use 2-arg ‘eval’), but the core transform is sound.
> IIRC it PASSed around 60% of the GNU sed 4.2 "make check".
> For Emacsoid in-process editing, see also module (ttn-do mogrify),
> also in ttn-do.  I (and my daemons) use it every day w/ Guile 1.8.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]