-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
firstname.lastname@example.org (Steven L Jenkins) writes:
> FWIW, one of my goals is to have scsh available on several Scheme
This is a good and tractable goal.
> I've done some thinking/looking around for a port to the MS Windows
> environment (3.X, 95, and NT), and, to be honest, I don't have
> a clue what scsh would look like on those.
Not very much like scsh, I'd bet, unless as you say, you
were on a POSIX-compliant system, which translates to
"roughly UNIX" anyway.
Of course, this is me saying that other OSes should be
more UNIXy in order to run a neat tool like scsh (among
all the other neat tools scsh can call from a script)
rather than scsh become less UNIXy in order to run on
inferior OSes, and I'm well-known to have strong biases. :-)
One other goal which is somewhat related is the idea of
translating more UNIX tools into Scheme. I've always
liked that idea, which was first thrown at me years ago by
Rayan Zachariassen, the progenitor of zmailer (the MTA
that has a script language that resembles a high-speed
collision between the Bourne shell and LISP, not Z-Mail,
the bells-and-whistles mail-reading tool).
Maybe the folks who like the idea of porting scsh to
non-UNIX OSes might like the idea of being able to port
the core of scsh and a large number of handy tools
expressed in scsh that otherwise would be missing, and
do some work on that too. ;>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: PGP Public Key in ftp://ftp.sprintlink.net/engineer/smd/pgpkey
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----