From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: What's missing in ELisp that makes people want to use cl-lib? Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2023 09:07:58 +0200 Message-ID: <83r0l771rl.fsf@gnu.org> References: <46ab3c7d-d820-4bb4-8ec4-97c614d7c8a0@alphapapa.net> <871qd8sfdx.fsf@posteo.net> <838r7g8pys.fsf@gnu.org> <87bkcbrgnr.fsf@posteo.net> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="2941"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: rms@gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, adam@alphapapa.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org, stefankangas@gmail.com To: Philip Kaludercic Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Nov 03 08:08:59 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qyoIc-0000Vu-JQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 03 Nov 2023 08:08:58 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qyoHt-0004pN-Kp; Fri, 03 Nov 2023 03:08:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qyoHr-0004nf-U0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Nov 2023 03:08:11 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qyoHr-0003vh-BQ; Fri, 03 Nov 2023 03:08:11 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=K1I9o+FnHs/ULE/XTba+IVPGgRXNjgwxK+PqoOQJA04=; b=UicJNwDV3Eor D3Cw0MJrWzCkzdnse3Txh3jW9gzQjXEAzaSXhWebFBWabPa83fb6YQHe+q3M51gsME5TN6laP/cqq pUBTakNsOilKUy5XuojyhN+QIz8kEHks+buJSHX6pd3qgN0me2fgvWKZrJ0GjGnAQrrKyvSNaz7yN 6KiD/0ya5DvSIe9gVv8UL8SHS1xfGZ3Z7LcEZd2+NQGZC1YWSfPR1GGEn9WkG9l9xkeZ7XzLjWS3E TziBfbHE7eqrnCA7XzPORBCoP3szBYAwPgiWJh7pisa9muPzurcr5MYbxFmhqH4oGrzHA5FWuUf9s IVwXBDkHdPqaL07meaMHZA==; In-Reply-To: <87bkcbrgnr.fsf@posteo.net> (message from Philip Kaludercic on Thu, 02 Nov 2023 21:26:00 +0000) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:312148 Archived-At: > From: Philip Kaludercic > Cc: rms@gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, adam@alphapapa.net, > emacs-devel@gnu.org, stefankangas@gmail.com > Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2023 21:26:00 +0000 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > AFAIU, it means that Emacs Lisp traditionally doesn't use keyword > > arguments, except as relatively rare exceptions. > > It is used rather prominently in `define-minor-mode' or > `define-derived-mode', or do you specifically mean keyword arguments to > functions? I did mention exceptions, didn't I? And define-derived-mode supports keyword arguments only since Emacs 22; the original implementation didn't. > >> what constitutes "Emacs Lisp"? It would > >> seem peculiar if it were to be defined by the arbitrary decisions of the > >> past, constrained by the contingent circumstances of the time. > > > > Those "arbitrary decisions" are what got us to where we are now, 40 > > years later. So some respect for those "arbitrary decisions" is due, > > I think. > > No disrespect meant, but I am not sure we are thinking of the same > things. An "arbitrary decision" usually doesn't matter much, like > calling a function rplacd or setcdr. If a decision got us to where we > are now, I would say it wasn't that arbitrary, but a good one? Exactly my point. So what did you mean by "It would seem peculiar if [what constitutes Emacs Lisp] were to be defined by the arbitrary decisions of the past"? > > IMNSHO, extending Emacs Lisp as the language is not the main goal of > > Emacs development. Emacs Lisp is not a programming language on its > > own, it is a language for implementing and extending features and > > extensions in Emacs. Thus, the main goal of Emacs development is to > > develop applications and application-level features, and provide more > > opportunities for extending the core where that is considered useful. > > What we have in Emacs Lisp is IMO ample for that purpose. Moreover, > > most participants in Emacs development are not experts in programming > > languages, their expertise is elsewhere (which is definitely a Good > > Thing). > > Of course not extending it for its own sake, but I would assume that > making it easier for users to write practical and useful code should be > something that is valued. We should consider such additions carefully, weighing their advantages against the disadvantages: introducing "alien" syntax, making the language larger, etc. > > Objectively, adding new syntax and semantics to Emacs Lisp does make > > the source code harder to read and maintain, because it makes the > > language larger and requires familiarization with those new language > > features, which more often than not look and feel completely different > > from the "traditional" Emacs Lisp. So even if we conclude that these > > additions are worthwhile, we should not pretend they come without a > > price, and IMO we should think carefully whether their use is > > justified before we use them in each and every case. > > Could you explain what you mean by "traditional" Emacs Lisp? Basically, the language as it is, without macros whose syntax is different from Emacs Lisp. For example, cl-loop has syntax that to my eyes is starkly not Emacs Lisp, because it uses many keyword-like parts that look like they were lifted from Fortran.