From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Standardizing more key bindings? Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2020 08:51:54 -0500 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="14774"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, thibaut.verron@gmail.com, Dmitry Gutov To: Richard Stallman Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 01 14:52:42 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 1kZDmj-0003lS-Ng for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 01 Nov 2020 14:52:41 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50948 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kZDmi-0007bm-OY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 01 Nov 2020 08:52:40 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38962) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kZDmC-00079e-Ax for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Nov 2020 08:52:08 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:4373) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kZDmA-0004M2-23; Sun, 01 Nov 2020 08:52:07 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 338824408E0; Sun, 1 Nov 2020 08:52:04 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 978C0440202; Sun, 1 Nov 2020 08:51:55 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1604238715; bh=c9xZxHuBzqI84W1dDCkf+rxaCdPgsFdUpsD4P99EbaA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=S1diZja2OY6IGipkCxbRGQkZZpBuz4zgyLnL4KqpfxMgCni5ymEy+cIltBbcTgRCC OIzwW8+TaEUuEeeqMznl5k0lv5KwFxN1FjNmQecF8uOWHUxUZcJVRsqT3AVgYfsOe2 MDL8VXrXv4lF8NxpawnKWM0rlQTtfeLaBiwDeRC6hQVi0UTOwQ271HiLVq9XQa8k7e Dr12YfSjdokgMbemstoVNn3zwRTz41z1aSOy4Nj3h4W6AyGWnAjYPGahd3VTADj3SB 4tUIkbPAB/MRpfE9J7JBGKbHH/7Wzdnr8FwFR75CwbBMBrm+eR+qUSWn3YnMI1bGZA vDsD2kI+FzAxg== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [157.52.9.240]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 24F381201D0; Sun, 1 Nov 2020 08:51:55 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Sun, 01 Nov 2020 00:27:34 -0400") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/11/01 08:29:12 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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:258600 Archived-At: > > 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. Many (most?) of those languages do have `eval`, and many have some form of `read` available as well. > 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. So what? Their command loop does do "read, then eval, then print". It's only natural that what "read", "eval", and "print" means for language Foo is not necessarily the same as what it means for language Bar. Maybe you could argue that Lisp's "read" and "eval" are better, but that doesn't mean that other languages's command loop aren't "REPLs". Whether the "read", the "eval", and the "print" part are made available to the language or only used by the interactive loop doesn't change the code of the interactive loop, nor how the user interacts with it. IOW, it's still a "REPL". Stefan