On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 18:14:26 -0500, Richard Ipsum wrote: > Perhaps slightly odd to post this here, but I know for certain that there are > two yarn devs on this list and one contributor. As one of those, I don't mind :D > Recently I've been playing with OpenBSD and found that I wasn't able to run > my yarns there, so I wrote Tiny Yarn, which is a quite hacky implementation > in Lua/C. Interesting. What in C did you need which Luxio et al. didn't provide for you?

> If you have any feedback or suggestions I'd love to hear them, I also made > use of some of the build elements from Luxio, so thank you for that. I think you helped with those anyway, and providing you're licence-compliant I have no issue with you taking them for your project :D

> Though it works for all the yarns I'm using, I'm quite certain there will be > bugs and it will break on other yarns, I'd be very interested in hearing > about any bugs. If it works for Gitano's yarns then that's the majority of the stuff I run under yarn as it is. So it sounds like you've done a good job.

> Code is here: http://violaine.xyz/git/tinyyarn.git/ I will pop that in my bookmarks to take a look at. Eventually I'd like to extend rsyarn to support the full design Lars and I came up with a while back <https://blog.digital-scurf.org/posts/yarn-architecture/> and it's possible that might be a useful reference for you to decide how much work it'd be to ensure your tinyyarn becomes, or remains, "normative" should we undertake the work outlined in that post. Of course, that post was nearly 2 years ago now, so we're pretty slow off the mark :D

Thanks for writing another yarn implementation, the testing tool. I too welcome it. It helps to have different takes on how it should work, and to drive in the point that there should really be a formal specification for the yarn language.

I don't currently have time to work on yarn, being busy with a slew of other personal projects. A couple of years ago Daniel and I happened to be in front of the same whiteboard and came up with some ideas for improvements, documented in the link Daniel posted. Since then I've felt that it'd be nice if yarn tests were easier to debug, but I haven't got any concrete ideas for how to achieve that.

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:36:38PM -0500, Richard Ipsum wrote: > On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, at 08:49, Daniel Silverstone wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 18:14:26 -0500, Richard Ipsum wrote: > > > Perhaps slightly odd to post this here, but I know for certain that there are > > > two yarn devs on this list and one contributor. > > > > As one of those, I don't mind :D > > > > > Recently I've been playing with OpenBSD and found that I wasn't able to run > > > my yarns there, so I wrote Tiny Yarn, which is a quite hacky implementation > > > in Lua/C. > > > > Interesting. What in C did you need which Luxio et al. didn't provide for you? > > I could have used Luxio, but I wanted to keep dependencies to an absolute minimum, > this started off as a pure C project but I decided I didn't want to do string handling in C. I'm in favour of keeping dependencies to a minimum, as long as it doesn't result in too much extra work for the implementor. I've not had time to try tinyyarn, but if I did, I'd be mostly concerned about having to convert my PCRE regexes to plain POSIX ones. Most of my yarns use PCRE extensions, I think. I used them originally because, well, Python supports them out of the box. If we decided to do a deep re-think of yarn, and re-design it from scratch, this would be one of the things that would be thought about. Some day.