Re: [RP] Re: poundbang

[Shawn Betts]

Ryan Yeske <address@hidden> writes:
> Shawn Betts <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > John Meacham <address@hidden> writes:
> > >
> > > the correct solution is to add a single option
> > > 
> > > -f <file> -  read commands from file. 
> > > 
> > > then put 
> > > #!/usr/bin/ratpoison -f
> > > 
> > > at the beginning of your files.
> > 
> > I'm not sure I understand the point of being able to use ratpoison
> > this way. Ratpoison will never have conditionals, looping, or
> > variables as part of it's command set. So the only thing you'll ever
> > be able to do is list a bunch of hard-coded commands. 
> >
> > Let's also not forget that if you want to run the sh script
> > 'doit.sh' you can run:
> > 
> > $ doit.sh
> > 
> > if the permissions are setup or
> > 
> > $ sh doit.sh
> > 
> > If you want to run a batch of commands you can always run:
> > 
> > $ ratpoison -c "source <file>"
> > 
> > And if you do it often then you can bind a key or an alias to it and
> > execute it quickly.
> 
> While this is all true, I do think its still *slightly* more
> convenient to be able to write the file 'doit.rp' as:
> 
>         #!/usr/bin/ratpoison -f
>         next
>         banish
>         prev
> 
> I'll try to state the case for #!/usr/bin/ratpoison:
> 
> 1) First of all, never say never.  Who can really say what ratpoison
>    will look like in 5/10 years?  It may have conditionals, looping,
>    whatever.  Hopefully we are all running stumpwm then, but...

No way man. If you want a programming language wrap the rp commands
in your favorite language load the rp command wrapper and hack away:

#!/usr/bin/lisp

(asdf:operate 'asdf:load-op 'ratpoison-cmd)
(if (eq (yer-daddy) 'sabetts)
   (rp:split)
  (rp:echo "Not even."))

(loop for i in (rp:windows "%n")
      for j from 1 to (length (rp:windows))
      do (rp:number (i j)))

There will never be an rp scripting language.

> 5) From the shell, its slightly easier to fit ratpoison into a
>    pipeline.  Where you want it to read commands from stdin if you
>    just need to write foobar|ratpoison -f /dev/stdin rather than
>    foobar|ratpoison -c "source /dev/stdin".  Not only is it NINE
>    characters shorter, but there is a layer of quotes removed, which
>    is always good.

ratpoison -c "source /dev/stdin" won't work because it tells the
window managing ratpoison to source /dev/stdin which is who knows
where.

After reading your argument I do agree that there is some benefit to
telling ratpoison to send the contents of a file to the mother
process.

I'll prolly sit on the patch for a month and then apply it like I
usually do :).

-Shawn