Commands within Commands

[allan...@gmail.com]

Would it be possible to add commands within a command? the specific
example i am thinking of at the moment would be something like...
twitter *tiny this check this site out (which would tiny the url
within the twitter message). Is it already in there and I am just too
much of a dumbass to figure it out?

If not then i can imagine there would be a few teirs of commands, tiny
is pretty useful across a bunch of services.

Do I even make sense?

Cheers

[Jono]

Hi Allan,
You can already get the same effect you want with the (undocumented) command-chaining feature.  First, run:

"tinyurl this"

Then, with no selection, run:
"twitter this check this site out"

The first "this" in the second command gets the output of the value of the first command.

But this is just the start.  I'm thinking we should be able to have multiple named buffers, and to chain commands together on one line:

"tinyurl this and twitter it check this site out"

one command follows the other, rather than being embedded inside the other.  I think this way is easier to understand (unless you're a LISP programmer).
--Jono

[Aza]

Hey Allan (and Jono),

I really like where you are going with this. As Jono pointed out, the syntax for "twitter this check this site out" is a bit hard for my mind to grasp, but I don't think that means we should stop iterating on the idea. Instead, that means we should dive deeper.

-- aza | ɐzɐ --

[Fernando Takai]

Having chained commands will be very good  -- the syntax tinyurl this and twitter it it's pretty pretty good too, but maybe a lot of users will not undestand it on the first look but after will be a plus.

--
Fernando "Takai"
http://flickr.com/photos/supeertakai
http://fernandotakai.wordpress.com
http://fernandotakai.jaiku.com

[Allan Anderson]

Ah that chaining thing was happening and confusing me a little, is there a command to "clear all"?

I was thinkking about something similar to this a while back (i probably should have done some more searching first and got involved with this) http://tinyurl.com/6eybyd (i just used tiny on that :D) ,

I wonder if some kind of syntax like

twitter this *tiny check this site out
or twitter tiny(this) check it out.

would work. 

I suppose as far as the more general internet user goes they would not use the feature, but if you look at how many more programmers there are around today than say 5 years ago, and even how general users got used to IRC commands, also wiki.  I think that it would definitly be good to have a think about. 

I understand if you want to keep it natural language, it is more accessible

What jono said seems to make good sense.

"tinyurl this and twitter it check this site out"

how about "tinyurl this and twitter it: check this site out" -seperating the message from the commands (maybe just my silly brain)


I am the most excited about this app than anything I have come across in... ever.  Awesome work guys!

[Lars W.]

As long as the parser uses commands it would be possible to replicate
the behaviour of piping in linux shells.
This way the redirection between commands would be clear to a great
part of programmers, and the syntax would still be easily parseable.

But to make this work for everyone the parser has to understand
natural sentences, but that will take some time.

greets
Lars

On Aug 27, 5:19 am, "Allan Anderson" <allansid...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah that chaining thing was happening and confusing me a little, is there a
> command to "clear all"?
>
> I was thinkking about something similar to this a while back (i probably

> should have done some more searching first and got involved with this)http://tinyurl.com/6eybyd(i just used tiny on that :D) ,

>
> I wonder if some kind of syntax like
>
> twitter this *tiny check this site out
> or twitter tiny(this) check it out.
>
> would work.
>
> I suppose as far as the more general internet user goes they would not use
> the feature, but if you look at how many more programmers there are around
> today than say 5 years ago, and even how general users got used to IRC
> commands, also wiki.  I think that it would definitly be good to have a
> think about.
>
> I understand if you want to keep it natural language, it is more accessible
>
> What jono said seems to make good sense.
> "tinyurl this and twitter it check this site out"
>
> how about "tinyurl this and twitter it: check this site out" -seperating the
> message from the commands (maybe just my silly brain)
>
> I am the most excited about this app than anything I have come across in...
> ever.  Awesome work guys!
>

> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Fernando Takai <fernando.ta...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Having chained commands will be very good  -- the syntax tinyurl this and
> > twitter it it's pretty pretty good too, but maybe a lot of users will not
> > undestand it on the first look but after will be a plus.
>
> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Aza <a...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
> >> Hey Allan (and Jono),
>
> >> I really like where you are going with this. As Jono pointed out, the
> >> syntax for "twitter this check this site out" is a bit hard for my mind to
> >> grasp, but I don't think that means we should stop iterating on the idea.
> >> Instead, that means we should dive deeper.
>
> >> -- aza | ɐzɐ --
>

> >> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Jono <jdica...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Hi Allan,
> >>> You can already get the same effect you want with the (undocumented)
> >>> command-chaining feature.  First, run:
>
> >>> "tinyurl this"
>
> >>> Then, with no selection, run:
> >>> "twitter this check this site out"
>
> >>> The first "this" in the second command gets the output of the value of
> >>> the first command.
>
> >>> But this is just the start.  I'm thinking we should be able to have
> >>> multiple named buffers, and to chain commands together on one line:
>
> >>> "tinyurl this and twitter it check this site out"
>
> >>> one command follows the other, rather than being embedded inside the
> >>> other.  I think this way is easier to understand (unless you're a LISP
> >>> programmer).
> >>>  --Jono
>

[Sherp]

Why do I get the feeling that we're going to run into limitations in
the English language before limitations in what we can program? :D

[rowanrook]

I found this page http://foyrek.com/chain.html but it links to a js
example. How do I install something like this?

On Aug 26, 9:05 pm, Aza <a...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Hey Allan (and Jono),
>
> I really like where you are going with this. As Jono pointed out, the syntax
> for "twitter this check this site out" is a bit hard for my mind to grasp,
> but I don't think that means we should stop iterating on the idea. Instead,
> that means we should dive deeper.
>
> -- aza | ɐzɐ --
>

> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Jono <jdica...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> > Hi Allan,
> > You can already get the same effect you want with the (undocumented)
> > command-chaining feature.  First, run:
>
> > "tinyurl this"
>
> > Then, with no selection, run:
> > "twitter this check this site out"
>
> > The first "this" in the second command gets the output of the value of the
> > first command.
>
> > But this is just the start.  I'm thinking we should be able to have
> > multiple named buffers, and to chain commands together on one line:
>
> > "tinyurl this and twitter it check this site out"
>
> > one command follows the other, rather than being embedded inside the
> > other.  I think this way is easier to understand (unless you're a LISP
> > programmer).
> > --Jono
>