[plt-scheme] What's the latest on the Scsh port?
Here's how I'd do it:
First, there'd be a way to search a set of directories for executables.
You could then use this function on the value of PATH to get the
same set that you would get in a `standard' shell. You'd initialize this
explicitly when starting the shell.
You definitely do *not* want to be searching PATH all the time.
For expressions like './ls', I think you need to create some semantics
for attempts to apply a pathname, or understand this microsyntax
specially.
The problem that I have with dynamically determining the binding of an
unbound function is that then I can no longer close over the value
of that variable reliably.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eli Barzilay" <eli at barzilay.org>
To: "Joe Marshall" <jrm at ccs.neu.edu>
Cc: "'PLT Scheme list'" <plt-scheme at list.cs.brown.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 23:50
Subject: Re: [plt-scheme] What's the latest on the Scsh port?
> For list-related administrative tasks:
> http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
>
> On Jul 14, Joe Marshall wrote:
> > From: "Eli Barzilay" <eli at barzilay.org>
> > >
> > > There's another important bit -- if you read an "ls" sexp, then you
> > > need to do the right thing even if it is unbound.
> >
> > Or ensure that it is bound.
>
> That's an option too, but I think it'll be confusing if you get
> bindings just because you used one of these things. This is even more
> confusing with the fact that the expected binding would depend on your
> PATH setting, and there are things like `./ls' which should behave
> differently... If you mean bind `ls' and `./ls' to procedures that
> will do a search any time they're used then there is another problem
> -- I want the fake-procedure thing to be done only on symbols that can
> actually get executed, otherwise you'd get no errors for any unbound
> variable since procedures are not different than values...
>
> --
> ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
> http://www.barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
>