From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Helmut Eller Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: is requiring cl bad? Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:16:53 +0100 Message-ID: References: <874njm2vlx.fsf@kanis.fr> <87txrkfqcl.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com> <50D29831.9060408@harpegolden.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1355995038 12656 80.91.229.3 (20 Dec 2012 09:17:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 09:17:18 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 20 10:17:33 2012 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 1TlcFx-00044o-8c for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:17:33 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34917 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TlcFj-00088q-KT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 04:17:19 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:54905) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TlcFe-000860-Bh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 04:17:18 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TlcFZ-0007He-MZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 04:17:14 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:57634) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TlcFZ-0007HW-GK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 04:17:09 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TlcFh-0003sy-HX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:17:17 +0100 Original-Received: from dial-179155.pool.broadband44.net ([212.46.179.155]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:17:17 +0100 Original-Received: from eller.helmut by dial-179155.pool.broadband44.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:17:17 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 26 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: dial-179155.pool.broadband44.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Rijx2FwDUDpK2wLgolUazs6C/L0= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 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:155680 Archived-At: On Thu, Dec 20 2012, David De La Harpe Golden wrote: > If emacs ever did go toward adding new facilities in the general area > of modularity (however unlikely it is in reality in the near future), > I reckon Ron Garret's common lisp land "lexicons" work [1] might be a > better "lispy modularity thingy" for emacs lisp to be inspired by than > common lisp packages in particular. At least, I'd take a hard look at > lexicons (and at least glance at what some other languages do), before > just blindly adding common lisp style packages. Have you actually taken a "hard look" at Ron Garret's lexicons? What was your experience? I played with them a few years back, but I quickly concluded that lexicons are only a crude prototype and that it was never used in the "field"; not something I would use. Ron Garret's code only worked with Clozure CL and since then CCL's internals have changed a bit so that lexicons no longer work. Common Lisp's packages are not prefect, but they get the job done. The problems (and workarounds) are by now well known. > Emacs lisp is lexically scoped now after all. If you want Scheme-like modules based on lexical scoping you will also need hygienic macros. (Something that Common Lisp nicely avoids.) Helmut