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: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 18:44:21 +0200 Message-ID: <87tx44ri8q.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> 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> <8738bpuejg.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1411058998 17096 80.91.229.3 (18 Sep 2014 16:49:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 16:49:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Taylan Ulrich Bayirli/Kammer Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 18 18:49:53 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 1XUeu0-0005v9-Kk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 18:49:52 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52253 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XUeu0-0004Co-AQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 12:49:52 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37758) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XUetj-0004C2-AM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 12:49:38 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XUetZ-0005ar-4l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 12:49:35 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:52411) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XUetZ-0005YV-17 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 12:49:25 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59533 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XUeow-0003sL-A7; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 12:44:38 -0400 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 52629DF8D0; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 18:44:21 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <8738bpuejg.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> (Taylan Ulrich Bayirli's message of "Thu, 18 Sep 2014 17:36:03 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:174511 Archived-At: Taylan Ulrich Bayirli/Kammer writes: > David Kastrup writes: > >> 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? My fault: that's actually the Todo list (which is also, uh, diverging just so slightly from your characterization of the current situation). The discussion of incompatible semantics and some of the consequences is at . >> 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. The problem is not one of enthusiasm, it is one of extemporizing non-existent information and reinterpreting existing information based on one's preconceptions. While how people want things to be is not completely unrelated to how they will end up, that is much more the case when they can significantly contribute themselves to the things moving where they want them to be. But the main challenges here are of technical nature. I see a real problem regarding the #f '() nil situation. If you take a look, say, at , you'll find that thinking outside of the Scheme standard box even regarding useful choices for unspecified behavior is quite unpopular with GUILE. That's unfortunate for the chances of moving VM behavior and primitives in manners consciously more friendly towards Lisp semantics. The priority of GUILE very much lies with Scheme, with a narrow view towards filling functionality left open by the Scheme standard with anything more useful than throwing errors. -- David Kastrup