Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re[2]: [SM-Discuss] sorcery purists do not read!

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Mark Andrews <msasgl AT msa-enterprises.com>
  • To: "Sergey A. Lipnevich" <sergeyli AT pisem.net>
  • Cc: SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re[2]: [SM-Discuss] sorcery purists do not read!
  • Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:07:24 +0000

Hello Sergey,

Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 3:10:37 AM, you wrote:

SAL> Just a couple of notes. Versions in spell (directory) names are quite
SAL> difficult to version-track.

Depends if it's a computer or human doing the tracking ;-) At this
stage having the versions in the spell names and the spell names in
one place makes my life a lot easier. I can see where I'm at. Hey look
my autoconf-2.56 should be autoconf-2.57 8-)

And compared to trying to manage multiple versions of things with the
same name, I know where I prefer to be. And picking a section for a
spell is one less thing I have to worry about. I guess I'm just lazy..

Also at this point I am still considering the idea that the master
grimoire may not necessarily follow the same layout as the build one
with scribe moving things between the two. "There's a new version of
autoconf - do you want to update your local grimoire?" type of thing..

SAL> Then, even though advanced systems like Perforce can handle it,
SAL> exported grimoire would include too many similar files.

Not sure what your point is here, but grimoire is a somewhat fuzzy
concept at this stage in my code, which is experimental after all.
With the version information in the spell name, there will be far far
fewer updates but more "new" spells. Tracking updates is less of an
issue with this design IMHO. Rampant grimoire growth could be a
downside though..

SAL> Also, zsh still doesn't have hashes and multi-dimensional arrays,
SAL> or does it?

There's a hash command for command / directory hashing if that's what
you mean. There's associative arrays, but not multi-dimensional AFAIK
but isn't that the same in bash?

SAL> I'm also wondering what might zsh have that bash doesn't in
SAL> various ${} var expansion constructs?

Things like ${$(locate "*.h"):t} which fall over under bash but work
great in zsh spring immediately to mind. There's a lot of extra ways
to do things in zsh due to the support of nested parameters like
this. I kept having problems trying to do things like this when I was
learning bash, and to have a shell that handles how I think rather
than having to think like my shell is a big benefit IMHO.

--
Best regards,
Mark mailto:msasgl AT msa-enterprises.com





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page