From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: dexen deVries <dexen.devries@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Date: Fri,  5 Nov 2010 18:55:06 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.35-25+; KDE/4.5.1; i686; ; )
References: <773C7824-C50D-49EE-9CF8-74E91515F2F3@corpus-callosum.com>
	<201011051832.14379.dexen.devries@gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinNE_VJosB2EOFCU3hyBtoHpNgOszGPtg=58yNB@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinNE_VJosB2EOFCU3hyBtoHpNgOszGPtg=58yNB@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201011051855.07310.dexen.devries@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan9 development
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 78280eea-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Friday 05 of November 2010 18:39:14 andrey mirtchovski wrote:
> > To me, make is a tool for generating an acyclic, directed graph of
> > dependencies  between build steps from some explicit and some wildcard
> > rules -- and then traversing it in a sensible order. How's that for
> > daily use shell?
>
> your focus is too narrowed on building. a sequence of commands piping
> output to each other is also a directed acyclic graph.

A bit in the style of plumber, one would have set of make-like rules defined in
some $home/lib/mash, and mash would automagically apply them when target(s)
match?

Currently shell use consists of indicating data source and actions to be
taken. With mash it would be more about indicating desired targets in the
current context, to be created with mash rules in currenct context, right?


On Friday 05 of November 2010 18:45:17 David Leimbach wrote:
> The possibilities are finite!

and so is the memory in a Turing machine...
*mumbles something about turing tar-pit*