[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Building Bash with Geesh

From: Timothy Sample
Subject: Re: Building Bash with Geesh
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2018 19:33:18 -0500
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)

Hi Ludo,

Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> writes:

> ...
> Which parts of 2.2 that 2.0 lacks does it need?  PEG?

For Geesh, I think it is mostly just trivialities like “peek-char”
vs. “lookahead-char”.  I started adapting it once, and fixing one or two
small things like that would make the front-end (lexer and parser) work
for Guile 2.0.  I’m less sure about the back-end.  Being relatively new
to Guile means that Guile 2.2 just *is* Guile as far as I know.  :)

> Overall I’m in favor of changing the bootstrap seeds as rarely as
> possible.  Also, if our horizon is a full Scheme bootstrap has Jan
> proposed (and I think that’s a great plan!), then perhaps we’ll have to
> arrange to not rely on fancy Guile features in build-side code meant to
> run early on during bootstrap.  So far it was easy to keep (guix build …) 
> valid for both 2.2 and 2.0, but these are simple modules; I don’t know
> whether that’s reasonably feasible for more complex pieces of software
> like Geesh and Gash.
> All that said, the benefit of removing Bash from the seeds may well
> outweigh the “cost” of upgrading to Guile 2.2.

This makes sense.  I’m pretty sure we could stick with version 2.0 if
we’re careful.

> ...
> It’d be great if both projects could converge; there’ll still be plenty
> of challenges to satisfy your playfulness anyway.  :-)  (Like, say, a
> shell→tree-il front-end, hint hint ;-)).

Agreed!  Imagining a “(language shell spec)” module was what got me
motivated in the first place.  :)

> That said I can imagine it’s not that easy and maybe also less fun but
> it would help the longer-term goal of building a solid foundation for
> bootstrapped distros.
> Anyway, kudos on these achievements!  I guess we at least need Geesh and
> Gash packages now!  :-)


> Ludo’.

-- Tim

reply via email to

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