From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs Lisp's future Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:17:10 +0200 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <871tqwmcy1.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <54193A70.9020901@member.fsf.org> <87lhp6h4zb.fsf@panthera.terpri.org> <87k34qo4c1.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <54257C22.2000806@yandex.ru> <83iokato6x.fsf@gnu.org> <87wq8pwjen.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <837g0ptnlj.fsf@gnu.org> <87r3yxwdr6.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87tx3tmi3t.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <834mvttgsf.fsf@gnu.org> <87lhp5m99w.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87fvfcluys.fsf@panthera.terpri.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1411888689 21954 80.91.229.3 (28 Sep 2014 07:18:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 07:18:09 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Sep 28 09:17:58 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XY8jy-0006kp-9c for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:17:54 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58779 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XY8jx-00076w-PQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 03:17:53 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50508) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XY8jg-00076m-Sy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 03:17:42 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XY8jb-0001Xf-Fw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 03:17:36 -0400 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:40517) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XY8jb-0001Wu-92 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 03:17:31 -0400 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XY8jT-0006dH-2b for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:17:23 +0200 Original-Received: from x2f43e81.dyn.telefonica.de ([2.244.62.129]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:17:23 +0200 Original-Received: from dak by x2f43e81.dyn.telefonica.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:17:23 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 31 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: x2f43e81.dyn.telefonica.de X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:fW5NNZC6LbbDl+pDD3lpRZBecig= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:174757 Archived-At: Robin Templeton writes: > David Kastrup writes: > >> The GUILE bridge is there. Robin Templeton's status of the port is that >> it is mostly complete, with strings/buffers being the most notable part >> obliterating acceptable performance via thick glue layers between Emacs' >> and GUILE's different implementations of similar concepts. > > Unifying the Elisp and Scheme string types is important, but more of a > long-term goal to allow convenient and efficient interaction between the > languages. Guile-Emacs's performance problems are mostly unrelated to > string handling. Elisp string representation is unchanged from standard > Emacs, except for trivial changes to make them an application-defined > Guile type. Ok, this is different _currently_ from the situation we have in LilyPond where string interaction between C++, LilyPond, and GUILE was already ubiquitous when GUILE 2.0 started supporting Unicode in its strings. Emacs has strategies and conventions for passing strings between C (literals, but also I/O and stuff) and Elisp reasonably cheaply whenever cheap is an option. When it is running on a GUILE VM, I don't see that it will get by without addressing similar questions regarding the GUILE domain. Though to be honest: the typical Emacs programmer is not usually exposed to the details of byte code in any way either. -- David Kastrup