4 ms·

It is not a real shell, since it misses basic pipes. It is just a library for renaming system functions to their Bash-like names... Move on, and look at these:

• rtpg 13y ago
  I'm not sure of the types of the functions, but Haskell's arrow typeclass could do arrows in theory.
• lelf 13y ago
  > since it misses basic pipes To be fair, you don't actually need them lelf:~/srcs/hell$ reverse <$> pwd "lleh/scrs/flel/sresU/" But yes, right now it's just a bunch of renames.
• klrr 13y ago
  Might note this was "whipped this up in a few hours". I suspect this is just an experiment. But I think this might evolve into something serious, lots of interest was expressed in /r/haskell. On a serious side note, it doesn't need pipes since the shell utilities are wrapped as function which are composable in Haskell.
• gregwebs 13y ago
  The last 3 links are to shell-scripting libraries, which have a different goal than creating an interactive shell. I would recommend shelly, the library I created: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/shelly https://hackage.haskell.org/package/shelly
• maaku 13y ago
  Wouldn't pipes be implemented as monads (arrows)? I think it'd be defeating the point to bolt on a Bourne shell convention for Haskell shell, when there's a native capability to be used...
• asdasf 13y ago
  How does something this bad end up the top comment? Three out of four links you provided are completely irrelevant. It is not missing pipes. Pipes are a simple composition operator. Haskell already has that, no need to make a special version for this.
  • klrr 13y ago
    While it's true that you can't really pipe programs conveniently yet it sure supports composition with all functions as you suggest. Just wanted to note in case that was what the comment above was thinking about. Except that I pretty much agree with you, current top comment is crap.
• AsymetricCom 13y ago
  Otherwise the syntax would live up to the shell's name.