Re: scsh in PLT Scheme?

[Eli Barzilay <eli@barzilay.org>]

On Mar 26, Paul Steckler wrote:
> 
> So before we embark on that course, let me poll the PLT audience: 

BTW, I had some code at some point when I wanted to get some stuff
easier.  That was when I re-hacked the subprocess thing.  Most of it
was around starting processes, piping etc.  One thing I had was the
ability to get return value from both subprocesses and Scheme threads,
and then you could pipeline any mixtures of them together.  I think
that a lot of that stuff can still be recycled.


>   - do you currently use scsh?

No, but I use MzScheme extensively for scripts.


>   - would you find scsh-under-PLT-Scheme useful?

Definitely.


>   - would you use a PLT scsh-oid that implemented some, but not all
>     of scsh?

Yeah -- when I went over that I got the distinct impression that being
100% compatible should not be the main goal -- the main thing would be
to have an equivalent functionality available.


> Bypassing the scsh C code would mean that low-level Unix features
> would not be available.  For instance, the terminal support in scsh
> would be missing in such a port.

Wouldn't it be possible to write a minimal C extension that would
expose just a few important primitives?


> Here's what would be missing:
> 
>  - low-level socket stuff (Ch. 4)
>  - Scheme 48 threads, Unix signals  (Ch. 9)
>  - system log stuff (Ch. 10)
> 
> MzScheme already has its own thread system, and makes sockets
> available as Scheme ports via a high-level API.
> 
> How would you feel about this kind of (semi-)port of scsh?

I'd be very happy with it.

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                  http://www.barzilay.org/                 Maze is Life!