Re: Spending time on Guile Emacs?

Re: Spending time on Guile Emacs?

[Daniel Colascione]

On Wed, Nov 30 2016, John Wiegley wrote:
>>>>>> "TG" == Tobias Gerdin <tgerdin@gmail.com> writes:
>
> TG> So I am wondering if the time used to play catch-up with modern Lisps
> TG> would not be better spent by integrating Guile?
>
> I really think this just comes to down to who is willing to do that work?
> Guilemacs has made a lot of progress in the last few years, but it still
> hasn't garnered much attention yet.

Did we ever address the mismatch between Guile strings and Emacs ones?
We can't depend on everything being valid UTF-8.

Re: Spending time on Guile Emacs?

[Stefan Monnier]

> Did we ever address the mismatch between Guile strings and Emacs ones?
> We can't depend on everything being valid UTF-8.

Guile-Emacs has an "easy" solution for this: there are 2 kinds of strings,
the Scheme strings and the Emacs strings.


        Stefan

Re: Spending time on Guile Emacs?

[Tobias Gerdin]

>> Did we ever address the mismatch between Guile strings and Emacs ones? >> We can't depend on everything being valid UTF-8. > > Guile-Emacs has an "easy" solution for this: there are 2 kinds of strings, > the Scheme strings and the Emacs strings.

In addition there is the text properties support. Unless one unifies the two representations (perhaps via a compile-time flag if Emacs will be statically linked with Guile) I think the challenge is to make it easy and not too expensive to convert between them.

-Tobias

Re: Spending time on Guile Emacs?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Tobias Gerdin <tgerdin@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 21:48:05 +0100
> 
> In addition there is the text properties support. Unless one unifies the two representations (perhaps via a compile-time flag if Emacs will be statically linked with Guile) I think the challenge is to make it easy and not too expensive to convert between them.

Why would Guile want to know about text properties?  What would it do
with them?

AFAIU, Guile should receive only the text part of the Emacs strings,
with or without encoding conversion (probably with, because there are
some quirks in Emacs internal representation of text that Guile
neither can nor should care about).

As for statically linking Emacs with Guile, I'm not sure it's a good
idea, as Guile is a very large library.

Re: Spending time on Guile Emacs?

[Tobias Gerdin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1425 bytes --]

2016-12-02 8:20 GMT+01:00 Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>:

> > From: Tobias Gerdin <tgerdin@gmail.com>
> > Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 21:48:05 +0100
> >
> > In addition there is the text properties support. Unless one unifies the
> two representations (perhaps via a compile-time flag if Emacs will be
> statically linked with Guile) I think the challenge is to make it easy and
> not too expensive to convert between them.
>
> Why would Guile want to know about text properties?  What would it do
> with them?
>

If one would like to be able to use the standard Scheme string manipulation
procedures I believe Guile would need to know about the text properties
since they should be preserved. One option would be to have special
implementations of these when called from Emacs, or just provide some other
Emacs-only string library alltogether.


> AFAIU, Guile should receive only the text part of the Emacs strings,
> with or without encoding conversion (probably with, because there are
> some quirks in Emacs internal representation of text that Guile
> neither can nor should care about).
>

Right, keeping string Unicode-only makes a lot of sense for Guile in
general.

As for statically linking Emacs with Guile, I'm not sure it's a good
> idea, as Guile is a very large library.
>

Dynamically linked would be best of course, provided one could work out the
other issues without resorting to any compile-time configuration.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2191 bytes --]