Re: Lookarounds and recursion in Emacs regexes

[Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org>]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> And besides, given that Emacs extends itself, what exactly
> are the significant and fundamental differences between
> "extension language" and "implementation language"?

Good point.

>> It doesn't prevent adding other extension languages, nor
>> even does it necessarily prevent changing the
>> implementation language to another one in theory.
>
> Indeed, but replacing ELisp would probably need to rewrite
> a lot of internals currently implemented in C, since most,
> if not all, of them are currently very tightly coupled with
> Lisp and assume the existence and design/implementation of
> various aspects of the Lisp machine.

I don't think anyone suggests replacing Elisp, and if one
added another language, one would have to find very good ways
to integrate it with everything else, and not just trivially
so with text insert and stuff like that, so optimally, one
wouldn't have to rewrite anything.

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal