From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs Lisp's future Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2014 17:49:47 -0400 Message-ID: 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> <87h9ztm5oa.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87d2ahm3nw.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <871tqneyvl.fsf@netris.org> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1412545802 16113 80.91.229.3 (5 Oct 2014 21:50:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 21:50:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: dak@gnu.org, dmantipov@yandex.ru, emacs-devel@gnu.org, handa@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, eliz@gnu.org, stephen@xemacs.org To: Mark H Weaver Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Oct 05 23:49:57 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 1Xatgi-0001x9-TD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2014 23:49:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48773 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xatgi-0006Hb-Jo for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2014 17:49:56 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38308) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xatgc-0006DU-Aw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2014 17:49:51 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xatga-0000YY-I6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2014 17:49:50 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:56099) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xatga-0000YQ-Ee for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2014 17:49:48 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XatgZ-00062a-AU; Sun, 05 Oct 2014 17:49:47 -0400 In-reply-to: <871tqneyvl.fsf@netris.org> (message from Mark H Weaver on Sun, 05 Oct 2014 03:53:18 -0400) 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:174996 Archived-At: [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] Supporting property lists in Scheme raises difficult questions Do you mean text properties in strings, as in Emacs Lisp? These are more complicated than an ordinary property list on an object as a whole. such as: * What should the Scheme procedures 'string=?' and 'equal?' do when comparing two strings with the equal character sequences but unequal property lists? * Should Scheme procedures such as 'substring', 'string-append', 'string-upcase', etc, propagate the associated property list data? * What should Scheme's 'write' do when applied to a string that includes a property list? ('write' is analogous to 'prin1'). The obvious first suggestion is to handle each one as Emacs Lisp does. For printing, a different syntax might be needed to fit in with Scheme printed representation conventions, but that is ok. * Are there security implications to carrying around and possibly propagating (via Scheme's "substring") extra information that is effectively invisible to all procedures that have ever been available in Scheme? There are many ways to pass data from one piece of Scheme code to another. Is there any real, usable "security" now, that this would reduce? Can you give an example? Given a self-contained Scheme program, it should be easy to determine whether it ever examines or sets string text properties. Is that enough to provide the same "security" benefits in practice? -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call.