Files
lush/issues/30-user-builtin-shell-integration.md
Cormac Shannon 973dd90d65 Add user-defined commands via lush.commands table (issue #30)
User commands run in forked children like external commands, so they
support piping, redirection, and capture seamlessly.
2026-03-21 19:34:29 +00:00

70 lines
3.7 KiB
Markdown

# 30 — User-defined commands should behave like real shell commands
**Status:** open
**Related:** #26 (user builtins), #06 (piping), #15 (builtins)
## Problem
User-defined builtins registered via `lush.builtins.mycmd = function(name, arg, ...) end` are called directly as Lua functions in the parent process. This means:
1. **No stdout/stderr capture**`print()` inside the function writes directly to the terminal, not into the `{code, stdout, stderr}` result table. Backtick invocation returns `nil` instead of a result table.
2. **No pipe support** — piping to/from a user builtin fails because `exec_pipeline()` forks children that call `execvp()`, which can't find the function as an external command.
3. **No redirection support** — for the same reason, `>`, `>>`, `2>` etc. won't work.
Current behavior:
```
$ pat hello -- prints "hello", returns nil (no result table)
$ `pat hello` -- prints "hello", returns nil (no .stdout)
$ !pat hello | nvim -- "pat: No such file or directory"
```
In bash, user-defined functions work exactly like external commands at the call site — they can be piped, redirected, and captured. Lush should match this.
## Proposal
### Restructure the lush table
Separate built-in commands from user-defined commands:
- **`lush.builtins`** — reserved for C builtins (`cd`, `exec`, `umask`) that must run in-process because they modify parent process state. Read-only / not user-extensible.
- **`lush.commands`** — user-defined commands. These are Lua functions that behave like shell commands: they run in a forked subprocess, their stdout/stderr are captured, and they work with pipes and redirection.
Dispatch order: alias expansion → `lush.commands``lush.builtins``$PATH` lookup.
### Fork user commands into a subprocess
When dispatching a `lush.commands` entry:
1. Set up stdout/stderr capture pipes (same as external command execution)
2. `fork()`
3. **Child**: wire stdout/stderr to the pipe write ends, call the Lua function, `_exit()` with the return code
4. **Parent**: read captured output, `waitpid()`, build and return the `{code, stdout, stderr}` result table
This makes user commands compatible with `exec_pipeline()` — each pipeline stage already forks a child, so the child just needs to check `lush.commands` before falling through to `execvp()`.
**Important caveat**: because user commands run in a forked child, they **cannot** modify parent Lua state. Setting a global variable inside a `lush.commands` function will not be visible after the command returns. This matches how bash functions behave when used in a pipeline (bash also forks subshells for pipeline stages). This trade-off should be clearly documented.
### Return protocol
User commands should follow the same return convention as C builtins:
- Return a table `{code=int, stdout=string, stderr=string}`, OR
- Return an integer exit code (0 = success), OR
- Return nothing (implies exit code 0)
The forked child captures whatever the function `print()`s as stdout, and uses the return value for the exit code.
## Files
| File | Change |
|------|--------|
| `lcmd.c` | Split `try_builtin()` into `try_builtin()` (in-process, `lush.builtins` only) and `try_user_command()` (fork+capture, `lush.commands`); add `lush.commands` check in pipeline child processes |
| `lbuiltin.c` | Register C builtins under `lush.builtins`; create empty `lush.commands` table for user use |
## Open questions
- Should user commands receive stdin naturally (child inherits the pipe fd, `io.read()` works) or as a string argument? Leaning toward natural stdin inheritance — matches bash and the child's stdin is already wired.
- Naming: `lush.commands` vs `lush.functions` vs `lush.cmds`? `commands` is clearest.