From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 21:54:38 +0100 Message-ID: From: Charles Forsyth To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d563743d58a604c881e24b Subject: Re: [9fans] make-shells that create a file for you Topicbox-Message-UUID: b542a99c-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --0016e6d563743d58a604c881e24b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 The observation was that people at the time were adding clumsy programming-language features to make, which then executed commands it didn't really understand (ie, couldn't even parse them), and might it not be better just to add dependency operators (and others as needed) to a well-designed command language. On 30 August 2012 21:36, Jason Catena wrote: > This to me is not different from > the current way files are made with make tools, so I'm not sure what > was gained by bundling it into the shell. > --0016e6d563743d58a604c881e24b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The observation was that people at the time were adding clumsy programming-= language features to make,
which then executed commands it didn't r= eally understand (ie, couldn't even parse them),
and might it n= ot be better just to add dependency operators (and others as needed) to a w= ell-designed command language.

On 30 August 2012 21:36, Jason Catena <jason.catena@gmail.com> wrote:
This to me is not different from
the current way files are made with make tools, so I'm not sure what was gained by bundling it into the shell.

--0016e6d563743d58a604c881e24b--