On Jun 11, 2006, at 4:06 PM, Simen Edvardsen wrote:

> It's not, unless I've misunderstood something. In fact, you'd only
> need a ~/.irbrc with some shortcuts for commonly used shell stuff, and
> bam! - a Ruby  shell.
>
> On 6/11/06, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <znmeb / cesmail.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> DEBAUN, STEVE [Seminis/2400] wrote:
>> > In an inspired moment the other night, I thought it would be  
>> soooo cooool to
>> > have a command shell with ruby syntax.  The I started getting  
>> even crazier,
>> > and thought, what about a ruby interpreter as an o/s kernel...
>> >
>> > It may have only sounded cool because I was drunk, though.
>> >
>> > sd
>> >
>> How is a command shell with Ruby syntax different from "irb"?
>>

Please don't top post. Anyway, I think what people want is not a  
command shell with ruby syntax, but a command shell with mixed-syntax  
that would 'do the right thing'.

i.e.

ls -l *.rb
should work without doing ls '-l', '*.rb' (or even ls '-l *.rb')

but once you start typing something like

if cond

then it should pick up on the fact you are writing a ruby script now  
and not calling the 'if' binary with an argument of cond.