From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Standardizing more key bindings? Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2020 00:27:34 -0400 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: rms@gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Utf-8 Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="31747"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: thibaut.verron@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 01 05:28:08 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kZ4yO-0008AZ-2u for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 01 Nov 2020 05:28:08 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53372 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kZ4yN-0000lh-6v for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 01 Nov 2020 00:28:07 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45560) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kZ4xs-0000Lc-M0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Nov 2020 00:27:36 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:48984) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kZ4xr-0004s7-Mu; Sun, 01 Nov 2020 00:27:35 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1kZ4xq-0004oW-4C; Sun, 01 Nov 2020 00:27:34 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Dmitry Gutov on Wed, 30 Sep 2020 00:56:13 +0300) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:258593 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. ]]] I wrote > The term "REPL" is inapplicable for most of these languages, since > they do not have anything comparable ton read, eval, or print. You responded, > It's useless to fight to reserve this term to Lisp: it has been solidly > coined for similar programs in non-homoiconic languages as well for the > last 10-20 years at least. which seems to be a change of subject, because you're talking about some sort of "fight". I'm talking about the question of what terminology we should use in describing and designing GNU Emacs. We should use clear and correct terminology. Doing that does not require that we fight with other groups that make other decisions. > The languages in question might not have the same kind of 'read', but > they usually have 'eval', and their REPLs do 'print'. 'read' and 'eval' are things that those lanuages don't have. Their command loops do have the ability to read and execute an expression, but that does not break down, in those languages, into a combination of 'read' and 'eval' in the Lisp sense. -- Dr Richard Stallman Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)