From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Taylan Ulrich Bayirli/Kammer Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs Lisp's future Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 17:36:03 +0200 Message-ID: <8738bpuejg.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> References: <87wq97i78i.fsf@earlgrey.lan> <87sijqxzr2.fsf@newcastle.ac.uk> <878uliwajb.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> <87lhpitg6t.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87wq92uhwh.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> <87wq91si9s.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87oauduue2.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> <87a95xs0j8.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87bnqdupyc.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> <8761glrv2f.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <877g11uie6.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> <87y4thq8o9.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1411054594 19969 80.91.229.3 (18 Sep 2014 15:36:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 15:36:34 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 18 17:36:29 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 1XUdkw-0000mY-OG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 17:36:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51821 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XUdkw-0000dE-DC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 11:36:26 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49340) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XUdkk-0000by-LR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 11:36:23 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XUdki-000323-MY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 11:36:14 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-lb0-x230.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c04::230]:49128) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XUdki-00030g-EE; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 11:36:12 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-lb0-f176.google.com with SMTP id z11so1413924lbi.35 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 08:36:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=91d8+UYmFtFDu2FbLcKTwZ7D3dv45PPWfKq52hRG/sw=; b=oaHno1CMtBxdo9fLni0CBWQUftF3ygRJ/AwDUIv+BZ8yB7JxTe0m1nzhp24HrUOnTM 3UGSkCV0Tah6lW7SJV/sLzu2f8exT5t76WHeQ4QN9oPg9VpI3oHmM3CDs9kBqEWW1sou A8f1Q1+oBx/BfXR6pVY24TpTqpvZDHQstiR7GkFQGWINynBErjmegCbp3ypqtyDmBY/r dVZUQie+8ZL9ePZ4EeJVREPxkhdW1Os3ukZG1Z7avb/075v7iUh+d+c2G6NqSwCt+6e1 sA4XFMz5wedM7DZxCO03F6q6hzHb4zCpJ313wZ05HxU8AQE8YKZjOF9Uy9rG/4DGl9Tt nl5g== X-Received: by 10.152.43.99 with SMTP id v3mr474872lal.13.1411054566141; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 08:36:06 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from taylan.uni.cx (p200300514A48ABF10213E8FFFEED36FB.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [2003:51:4a48:abf1:213:e8ff:feed:36fb]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id v6sm7243626lbb.33.2014.09.18.08.36.05 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 18 Sep 2014 08:36:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87y4thq8o9.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> (David Kastrup's message of "Thu, 18 Sep 2014 16:56:22 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:4010:c04::230 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:174505 Archived-At: David Kastrup writes: > It was you who stated that you considered it likely that LilyPond was > not given any support of GUILE developers because of me being a persona > non grata. That's not "revenge." > As there will be "no pressure" from the GUILE side once they decide > Emacs becomes too inconvient to support. "Not gonna happen." :-) > Not particularly hard to guess since I pointed _out_ that there was > something fishy. Your attitude? I must have missed that. > Emacs is the platform for an ecosystem supporting thousands of packages. > That requires a rather high level of compatibility. Bug reports welcome. (With as little insults as possible.) > While you have ventured to say that you consider the move to Guile-Emacs > as less disruptive as that to lexical binding, you have glossed over the > fact that lexical binding has to be _explicitly_ enabled on a > file-by-file basis, meaning that old code will run unchanged and with > dynamic bindings. Lexical binding changes language semantics, Guile-Emacs doesn't. > One cannot help the impression that there is a certain elasticity to the > claims of what will be possible under which conditions that make them > less than useful for long-range planning. Consider the following: the name of this thread is "Emacs Lisp's future", and people talked about all sorts of changes to Elisp itself that they would like. And we two here are pondering whether Guile-Emacs *might* end up causing some *minor* changes to Elisp. (Backwards-incompatibilities rather; new features might be plenty.) > Brad's status report in contrast was rather to the point, and the web > page at paints a > more realistic picture of the current situation as well. Do you see any points there that mention incompatibilities between Emacs Elisp and Guile Elisp semantics? > At the current point of time, it definitely appears that the marketing > department should not fear being overtaken by the engineering > department, even though the latter is making solid progress. I think the marketing department you have in mind consists of me, who is not exactly a Guile developer. *Hangs head in shame.* Sorry that my enthusiasm over Guile-Emacs and a more unified GNU system have annoyed you; no reason to accuse Guile of marketing. Give me all the blame. I might not reply to further mails though. Taylan