From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19131 invoked from network); 24 Jul 2000 12:14:00 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 24 Jul 2000 12:14:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 3521 invoked by alias); 24 Jul 2000 12:13:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 3331 Received: (qmail 3457 invoked from network); 24 Jul 2000 12:10:44 -0000 Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 13:06:11 +0100 From: Oliver Kiddle Subject: Re: Tksh and dtksh replacements for Zsh-users? In-reply-to: <1000722171433.ZM4503@candle.brasslantern.com> Sender: okid@cm01.ess To: zsh-user mailing list Message-id: <200007241206.NAA37832@cm01.ess> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Bart Schaefer wrote: > I'm not very familiar with the sorts of things that one uses e.g. Dtksh >>From looking at the man page for dtksh, it seems that it does things at a fairly low level, offering builtins which map directly to many X, Xt, motif and CDE C functions. I wouldn't have a clue what it would make sense to use it for. > to write. My suspicion would be that a graphically-enabled shell is more > often used to add simple I/O dialogs to shell scripts than it is to write > full-blown GUI apps in shell. This is more the sort of thing which I would like: a few simple routines for pop-up messages and dialogue boxes. If that was implemented, what would be good is if there were separate modules for Tk, gtk etc which all had the same interface in zsh so they could be used interchangably. > Certainly I'd prefer a language with something approximating real data > structures for purposes of writing a GUI. I agree, most of the things a low level GUI interface in zsh could be used for might be better written in something else like Python, Perl or C. Oliver Kiddle