Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/3] git log --pretty=lua
- From
- Stephen Bash <bash@genarts.com>
- Date
- Sep 25, 2012, 13:49 UTC
- Message-ID
- <1236918118.55838.1348580955644.JavaMail.root@genarts.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CACsJy8Bs4P7R7m7uAqHYdmrXJA1RQmuoC7ybJFHWhW=efffQyw@mail.gmail.com>
----- Original Message -----
Show 17 quoted lines
> From: "Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy" <pclouds@gmail.com> > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 7:22:49 AM > Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/3] git log --pretty=lua > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote: > > We've talked off and on about extending the --pretty=format > > specifiers to something more flexible. There's also been talk > > recently of more flexible commit-filtering (e.g., grepping > > individual notes). Rather than invent a new Turing-complete > > language, I thought I'd try building on somebody else's work by > > embedding an existing language. > > > > Why Lua? I don't especially like it as a language. But it's designed > > for this purpose, which makes it very lightweight and relatively > > simple to embed. > > Personally I'd prefer a Scheme variant.
Scheme only brings up bad memories for me ;) And while we use Lua at $dayjob, I, like Peff, am not a huge fan of the syntax. So turning to the internet to solve my problem, a quick Google search for embeddable scripting languages (assuming the heavyweights like Perl and Python are already out) produces Lua, JavaScript or specifically SpiderMonkey [1] (yay buzzword compliance!), Ch [2] (unfortunately closed source), and AngelScript [3].
>From a brief read of the webpage, AngelScript looks pretty interesting.
I'm much better with (and thus preferential to) Python and Perl myself, but I can understand anyone's reservation in bundling/depending on libraries of that size.
[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/SpiderMonkey [2] http://www.softintegration.com/ [3] http://angelcode.com/angelscript/
Thanks, Stephen