Re: RFC: Additional testsuite alternative

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 03:50:07PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
> 
> It's a pity to implement a little language in Tcl.  People always
> introduce little languages, saying, "I just need a very simple
> language for this one situation; I don't need anything complex."
> And then, minor feature by minor feature, it grows, until you've got
> the Bourne shell.
> 
> Doesn't the Tcl we're using nowadays have namespaces?  Can't we make
> .x files just Tcl scripts that run in a namespace that has all the
> right commands in it?  Then Daniel's example:
> 
>     #compile two.cc two.exe executable debug
>     #runto main
>     #test "ptype StrOne"
>     type = class OneStruct {
>       public:
>         int simple;
>     [synthetic OneStruct]}
>     #test "ptype ConstStrOnePtr"
>     type = const class OneStruct {
>       public:
>         int simple;
>     [synthetic OneStruct]} \*
> 
> could just be:
> 
>     compile two.cc two.exe executable debug
>     runto main
>     test "ptype StrOne" {
>     type = class OneStruct {
>       public:
>         int simple;
>     [synthetic OneStruct]}
>     }
>     test "ptype ConstStrOnePtr" {
>     type = const class OneStruct {
>       public:
>         int simple;
>     [synthetic OneStruct]} \*
>     }
> 
> And you've got all your quoting stuff, comments, substitution, etc for
> free.  Designed carefully, not grown incrementally.

Now that's the kind of suggestion I was really fishing for.  I'll
investigate further - I like it.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer