David Kastrup, Thu, Aug 23, 2007 23:14:20 +0200: > 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. Now that'll be a mess. > > 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. > Git gets a script language support. People use the script outside of git and whine when it breaks or gets removed. - 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
