[M3devel] FW: move to version 5.7.1?

[Jay]

If it is part of the cm3 tree then I (for one) am ok with it.
It would have to be part of the "min" set.
Will it work on Windows or is it Posix-specific?
Working on Windows is kind of the point in question, since the *.sh files are fine for Unix.
 
JScript, Python, and maybe Quake should also do.
 
Possible problem with Quake and Scheme is it won't work for bootstrapping from older release.
Problem with JScript is it'll be Windows specific.
  Therefore you are stuck still with two (or three or four!) sets of files.
  Best to have one set that work "everywhere".
Bash and Python don't have these problems, they work with older cm3 and on all platforms.
(I reluctantly lump Bash in with Python as being good because I still haven't gotten around to get Python to compile on my MIPS64_OPENBSD system and use the Bash files on it.)
 
Bootstrapping eventually isn't an issue, eventually.
 
  - Jay


----------------------------------------
> To: jay.krell at cornell.edu
> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 06:39:20 -0800
> From: mika at async.caltech.edu
> CC: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> Subject: Re: [M3devel] [M3commit] FW: move to version 5.7.1?
>
>
> Jay writes:
> ...
>>----------------------------------------
>>> From: jay.krell at cornell.edu
>>> To: rcoleburn at scires.com; m3devel at elegosoft.com
>>> Subject: RE: [M3devel] move to version 5.7.1?
>>> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 02:28:07 +0000
> ...
>>>
>>> Cmd is an awful language for nearly any purpose.
>>> Please don't ask me to support any cmd files.
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe I will rewrite the automation in JScript.
>>> It is a half decent language and works plenty well for command line automation.
>>> It is been "in the OS" for many years, probably at least since Windows 2000, and
>>> with any install of Internet Explorer.
>>>
>>>
>>> But really..you know..all the Python I write...is somewhat of an indictment
>>> of either Modula-3 or myself -- I don't "like" Modula-3 enough to write much
>>> of anything in it.. That is..these "scripts" perhaps should be written in Modula-3.
>>>
>>>
>>> Or maybe actually in Quake?
>>> Quake is kind of limited though.
>>> Maybe with the updates though that Olaf made?
>>> I'll think about it.
>
> How about in Scheme? I have written/am writing a Scheme interpreter
> in Modula-3 that I am happy to release with CM3; it's very easily
> extensible (that's sort of the point of it), so one can easily add
> low-level features to it as necessary. The system would be
> self-contained with that interpreter. Maybe writing scripts in
> Scheme is a little "weird"... (but I do it :-) )
>
> Mika
>