Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > David Kastrup, Wed, Aug 22, 2007 19:17:16 +0200: >> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: >> > And not making the scripts builtins helps Windows users how, >> > exactly? >> >> Red herring. The proposal was not to do nothing, but rather give git >> a dedicated scripting language internal to it. Two suggestions of >> mine with different advantages were git-busybox and Lua. > > Different "disadvantages". How do you do pipes and safe > inter-program argument passing in Lua? Portably? Argument quoting would have to depend on the system. If you implement that, you should be able to use os.popen and os.system. However, the general Lua approach would be to write wrappers around C routines dealing with the basic git data structures, giving you things like an iterator over the index and similar. One would usually not call executables, but rather functions from a git-specific library. Instead of stringing this stuff together with pipes, one would string it together using coroutines (Lua "threads" are strictly synchronous, about as fast as normal function calls, and a yield/resume rendezvous passes a value together with control). So pipes would not be a natural building block, anyway. > What do you propose to do about gitbox becoming a dependency for > others, who inevitably start using it (why not? It promised to be > portable enough for Git itself!) I don't understand what you mean here. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
