lout-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: system() vs. fork()+exec*()


From: Oliver Bandel
Subject: Re: system() vs. fork()+exec*()
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 07:23:38 +0200 (MET DST)

Hello!

On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Graham Douglas wrote:

[...]
> ===================================
> ((Also, and I guess this is seriously complex, how
> would you add the new @Script{} primitive to Lout
> so that it's parsing mechanism would recognise it?
> [Install in a symbol table somewhere, of course, but I'm
> sure there are hugely complex issues involved?]))
> ===================================

Use the script's output by reading from it's stdout?
But isn't this @Filter, what we need then?

Or is the question behind using such scripts a thing
like using mathematic calculations and string-operations
and such stuff directly from within lout?

[...]
> "Stop reading the current source file and
> please temporarily switch to reading the memory
> block pointed to by (pointer). Once you've done that
> please carry on in the source file where you left off."
> [I'm sure there are issues here I have no concept of].

This looks like #include in C or similar things from
other languages.

> 
> I'm just posing the question -- I have no idea
> of the answer. I know that Lout is fast and
> that the existing @Filter works well but the idea of
> not having to continually call the shell because
> Lout had the scripting language "built in?" might be
> an interesting avenue to explore. Maybe not?

Why not embed Lout in a programming language?
So: Provide a programming-API for users (low-level-lout-users,
sometimes called programmers). This would be a high-level-postscript-
editor, which could be embedded in a program (C, Perl, Python,
OCaml, ...) and the programmer can use Lout's. So the
programmer can use the power of Lout instead of writing
postscript-wrappers by himself, every time he want nice output.

I think there would be *a lot* of programmers who would
be happy with that and a lot of application-programs,
which could be developped better and faster.
(On the other side the program can produce Lout-output instead of
Postscript-output, at least in the cases, where the output
matches Lout's capabilities.)

Ciao,
   Oliver


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]