Forum: IronRuby Executables

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Cb51033949ffccd982ae32c9f890f25a?d=identicon&s=25 Tomas Matousek (Guest)
on 2008-11-13 23:20
(Received via mailing list)
Today we have ir.exe that combines functionality of ruby.exe and a
command line REPL. Shouldn't we have also iruby.exe that mimics ruby.exe
(ie. if no file is given it reads input from standard input)?
Some specs expects that behavior (they start a new process ruby.exe and
write to its input stream).

Another option would be to have a single executable ir.exe that behaves
like ruby.exe and e.g. --dlr switch that makes it run DLR REPL loop.

Tomas
Ade8632553a9243ae05fc920f68644c1?d=identicon&s=25 Jim Deville (Guest)
on 2008-11-13 23:25
(Received via mailing list)
I like the switch option best. We also need to add a -e option to pass
some of the specs.


JD

From: Tomas Matousek
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 2:12 PM
To: IronRuby Team
Cc: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Executables

Today we have ir.exe that combines functionality of ruby.exe and a
command line REPL. Shouldn't we have also iruby.exe that mimics ruby.exe
(ie. if no file is given it reads input from standard input)?
Some specs expects that behavior (they start a new process ruby.exe and
write to its input stream).

Another option would be to have a single executable ir.exe that behaves
like ruby.exe and e.g. --dlr switch that makes it run DLR REPL loop.

Tomas
C98ff02b6d5c06f185a30ed1a69db766?d=identicon&s=25 Oleg Tkachenko (Guest)
on 2008-11-15 02:39
(Received via mailing list)
I like second option too. But why --dlr? Why not --repl?

--
Oleg

From: Jim Deville
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 2:16 PM
To: Tomas Matousek; IronRuby Team
Cc: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: RE: Executables

I like the switch option best. We also need to add a -e option to pass
some of the specs.


JD

From: Tomas Matousek
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 2:12 PM
To: IronRuby Team
Cc: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Executables

Today we have ir.exe that combines functionality of ruby.exe and a
command line REPL. Shouldn't we have also iruby.exe that mimics ruby.exe
(ie. if no file is given it reads input from standard input)?
Some specs expects that behavior (they start a new process ruby.exe and
write to its input stream).

Another option would be to have a single executable ir.exe that behaves
like ruby.exe and e.g. --dlr switch that makes it run DLR REPL loop.

Tomas
Cb51033949ffccd982ae32c9f890f25a?d=identicon&s=25 Tomas Matousek (Guest)
on 2008-11-15 02:40
(Received via mailing list)
Could be --repl.

From: Oleg Tkachenko
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 5:35 PM
To: Jim Deville; Tomas Matousek; IronRuby Team
Cc: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: RE: Executables

I like second option too. But why --dlr? Why not --repl?

--
Oleg

From: Jim Deville
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 2:16 PM
To: Tomas Matousek; IronRuby Team
Cc: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: RE: Executables

I like the switch option best. We also need to add a -e option to pass
some of the specs.


JD

From: Tomas Matousek
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 2:12 PM
To: IronRuby Team
Cc: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Executables

Today we have ir.exe that combines functionality of ruby.exe and a
command line REPL. Shouldn't we have also iruby.exe that mimics ruby.exe
(ie. if no file is given it reads input from standard input)?
Some specs expects that behavior (they start a new process ruby.exe and
write to its input stream).

Another option would be to have a single executable ir.exe that behaves
like ruby.exe and e.g. --dlr switch that makes it run DLR REPL loop.

Tomas
68f1bd9e9a7d9d10f0278c6535f700fe?d=identicon&s=25 Michael Letterle (Guest)
on 2008-11-15 02:53
(Received via mailing list)
Is there a particular reason we need the executable to do the REPL
itself?
ir.exe runs irb just fine, and is actually what I've been using lately
(there's a few annoyances but nothing earth shattering)

On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 8:39 PM, Tomas Matousek <
Cb51033949ffccd982ae32c9f890f25a?d=identicon&s=25 Tomas Matousek (Guest)
on 2008-11-15 03:09
(Received via mailing list)
We need DLR REPL for testing interop.

Tomas

From: ironruby-core-bounces@rubyforge.org
[mailto:ironruby-core-bounces@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Michael
Letterle
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 5:50 PM
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Executables

Is there a particular reason we need the executable to do the REPL
itself?  ir.exe runs irb just fine, and is actually what I've been using
lately (there's a few annoyances but nothing earth shattering)
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 8:39 PM, Tomas Matousek
<Tomas.Matousek@microsoft.com<mailto:Tomas.Matousek@microsoft.com>>
wrote:

Could be --repl.



From: Oleg Tkachenko
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 5:35 PM
To: Jim Deville; Tomas Matousek; IronRuby Team

Cc: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org<mailto:ironruby-core@rubyforge.org>
Subject: RE: Executables



I like second option too. But why --dlr? Why not --repl?



--

Oleg



From: Jim Deville
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 2:16 PM
To: Tomas Matousek; IronRuby Team
Cc: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org<mailto:ironruby-core@rubyforge.org>
Subject: RE: Executables



I like the switch option best. We also need to add a -e option to pass
some of the specs.





JD



From: Tomas Matousek
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 2:12 PM
To: IronRuby Team
Cc: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org<mailto:ironruby-core@rubyforge.org>
Subject: Executables



Today we have ir.exe that combines functionality of ruby.exe and a
command line REPL. Shouldn't we have also iruby.exe that mimics ruby.exe
(ie. if no file is given it reads input from standard input)?

Some specs expects that behavior (they start a new process ruby.exe and
write to its input stream).



Another option would be to have a single executable ir.exe that behaves
like ruby.exe and e.g. --dlr switch that makes it run DLR REPL loop.



Tomas
68f1bd9e9a7d9d10f0278c6535f700fe?d=identicon&s=25 Michael Letterle (Guest)
on 2008-11-15 03:18
(Received via mailing list)
? interop works through IRB just as well...

C:\>ir ruby\bin\irb
irb(main):001:0> require 'mscorlib'
=> true
irb(main):002:0> require 'System.Windows.Forms, Version=2.0.0.0,
Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089'
=> true
irb(main):003:0> f = System::Windows::Forms::Form.new
=> #<System::Windows::Forms::Form:0x00001b8>
irb(main):004:0> i = f.show_dialog
=> #<System::Windows::Forms::DialogResult:0x00001ea>


Am I missing something?


On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Tomas Matousek <
F983f0c990cba2fe743ef62a975ec99c?d=identicon&s=25 Curt Hagenlocher (Guest)
on 2008-11-15 23:44
(Received via mailing list)
We don't want our interop tests to be testing irb.rb though. :)

From: ironruby-core-bounces@rubyforge.org
[mailto:ironruby-core-bounces@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Michael
Letterle
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 6:18 PM
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Executables

? interop works through IRB just as well...

C:\>ir ruby\bin\irb
irb(main):001:0> require 'mscorlib'
=> true
irb(main):002:0> require 'System.Windows.Forms,
Version=2.0.0.0<http://2.0.0.0>, Culture=neutral,
PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089'
=> true
irb(main):003:0> f = System::Windows::Forms::Form.new
=> #<System::Windows::Forms::Form:0x00001b8>
irb(main):004:0> i = f.show_dialog
=> #<System::Windows::Forms::DialogResult:0x00001ea>


Am I missing something?

On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Tomas Matousek
<Tomas.Matousek@microsoft.com<mailto:Tomas.Matousek@microsoft.com>>
wrote:

We need DLR REPL for testing interop.



Tomas



From:
ironruby-core-bounces@rubyforge.org<mailto:ironruby-core-bounces@rubyforge.org>
[mailto:ironruby-core-bounces@rubyforge.org<mailto:ironruby-core-bounces@rubyforge.org>]
On Behalf Of Michael Letterle
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 5:50 PM
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org<mailto:ironruby-core@rubyforge.org>
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Executables



Is there a particular reason we need the executable to do the REPL
itself?  ir.exe runs irb just fine, and is actually what I've been using
lately (there's a few annoyances but nothing earth shattering)

On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 8:39 PM, Tomas Matousek
<Tomas.Matousek@microsoft.com<mailto:Tomas.Matousek@microsoft.com>>
wrote:

Could be --repl.



From: Oleg Tkachenko
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 5:35 PM
To: Jim Deville; Tomas Matousek; IronRuby Team

Cc: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org<mailto:ironruby-core@rubyforge.org>
Subject: RE: Executables



I like second option too. But why --dlr? Why not --repl?



--

Oleg



From: Jim Deville
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 2:16 PM
To: Tomas Matousek; IronRuby Team
Cc: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org<mailto:ironruby-core@rubyforge.org>
Subject: RE: Executables



I like the switch option best. We also need to add a -e option to pass
some of the specs.





JD



From: Tomas Matousek
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 2:12 PM
To: IronRuby Team
Cc: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org<mailto:ironruby-core@rubyforge.org>
Subject: Executables



Today we have ir.exe that combines functionality of ruby.exe and a
command line REPL. Shouldn't we have also iruby.exe that mimics ruby.exe
(ie. if no file is given it reads input from standard input)?

Some specs expects that behavior (they start a new process ruby.exe and
write to its input stream).



Another option would be to have a single executable ir.exe that behaves
like ruby.exe and e.g. --dlr switch that makes it run DLR REPL loop.



Tomas

_______________________________________________
Ironruby-core mailing list
Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org<mailto:Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org>
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core



--
Michael Letterle
[Polymath Prokrammer]
http://blog.prokrams.com
68f1bd9e9a7d9d10f0278c6535f700fe?d=identicon&s=25 Michael Letterle (Guest)
on 2008-11-15 23:55
(Received via mailing list)
If people are going to be using irb, you might ;)

Anyway, I suppose that makes sense
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.