Re: Perl, English, syntax for Scheme and shells (was Re: scsh in scm ...)

[fox@graphics.cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)]

In article <meta-0301961304100001@mcgyorgy.cam.harlequin.co.uk> 
meta@harlequin.co.uk (mathew) writes:

] In article <4cc999$424@jive.cs.utexas.edu>, wilson@cs.utexas.edu (Paul
] Wilson) wrote:
] > What do we look for in a syntax for a shell language, including one
] > that's typed at an interactive prompt?
] 
] What I look for in an interactive shell is entirely different from what I
] look for in a scripting and programming language.
] 
] I already have tcsh to work as my interactive shell.  I wouldn't dream of
] writing text file processing software as tcsh scripts, though.
] 
] Similarly, I have Perl for writing text file processing tools, but I
] wouldn't dream of using a shell that had Perl syntax.
] 
] > One thing I've been thinking about lately is that (again, rightly
] > or wrongly) people are willing to learn command languages that have
] > a very different syntax from normal programming languages
] 
] Absolutely.  I expect my interactive command language to have different
] syntax from the programming languages I use, because they serve very
] different purposes.

Could you elaborate?  What is it about what you look for and
expect from an interactive shell that requires a different syntax?
The examples you give show that the languages you use now happen
to have different syntaxes, but don't explain why they must be
different.
-- 
David Fox          http://found.cs.nyu.edu/fox          xoF divaD
NYU Media Research Lab                     baL hcraeseR aideM UYN