On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Tim Peters wrote: > 2. Tcl's more robust (than Python's) x-platform exec implementation > (similar to Python os.system(), but with a platform-independent > notation for pipes and redirection and envar substitution, and > returning the exit status correctly even under command.com-based > Windows flavors (where os.system() always returns 0)). I looked > at this once -- there are several thousand lines of exec support > code in Tcl (which shouldn't be surprising, since they're basically > supplying one of the hardest parts of a x-platform shell!). I recall you reporting that. It *would* be nice to have cross-platform pipes and exec, though i understand maintaining such non-portable code is too high a price to pay. I bet we went over this then, but i can't help but wonder whether an approach like tkinter, stealing the tcl code, would be a manageable approach? Mostly idle speculation, since i wouldn't have the time nor expertise to implement such a thing myself. > 3. Variants of Tcl's uplevel, i.e. gimmicks for fiddling locals > "up the stack". Maybe it's not called exactly "uplevel" in Tcl, > but it's plain sick however it's spelled <wink>. I think it's 'upvar'. I probably remember because it had something to do with my python roots. Pardon me while i geeze a bit... Back at nist i was looking for a scripting language for systems support type stuff, bounced off perl, and tried using tcl for a trial task, to see if i could use it. I made a dns nested-domain traverser, so i could automate a table-driven network service for all of nist's subdomains (producing an exports file for a nist-wide NFS service). I did it, but was not a happy camper - it was seriously painful to have to manage recursion by, essentially, managing the stack with upvar, &c. Mike mclay happened to drop by around then, and i whined to him about my tcl abomination um script - and he said, "have you looked at python?" I did, and, to make a long story short, lived happily ever after.-) 'upvar' *is* sick. Thanks, mike. Ken klm@zope.com [In a usenet news group, long long ago:] > [Someone]: > > >Programming language preferences are largely a matter of taste, an area > >where reasonable people will forever disagree. I would like to think > >that such disagreements could be predicated upon an understanding that > >most of the issues involved are not decidable by logical proofs. > > This is the 101 philosophy-student phenomena: "I can't explain it with > words". > > - marcus@ee.pdx.edu (Marcus Daniels)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4