From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Pascal Bourguignon Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Some racism in emacs! Date: 02 Jun 2003 08:42:20 +0200 Organization: informatimago.com Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+gnu-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <873citkmk3.fsf@thalassa.informatimago.com> References: <87add2tjro.fsf@thalassa.informatimago.com> <87n0h2jldb.fsf@indigo.shootybangbang.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1054536268 14402 80.91.224.249 (2 Jun 2003 06:44:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 06:44:28 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+gnu-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jun 02 08:44:26 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19Mj3S-0003k4-00 for ; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 08:44:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Mj4I-0000zD-Qb for gnu-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 02:45:18 -0400 Original-Path: shelby.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!thalassa.informatimago.COM!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help Original-Lines: 67 Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: thalassa.informatimago.com (195.114.85.198) Original-X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1054536149 8782107 195.114.85.198 (16 [41911]) User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) 21.3.50.pjb1.2 Original-Xref: shelby.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.help:113967 Original-To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+gnu-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:10461 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.help:10461 John Paul Wallington writes: > The cl library, like Common Lisp, is big and hard to subset. Who asked for a subset? > Amongst the Emacs Lisp Coding Conventions it is suggested: > > * Please don't require the `cl' package of Common Lisp extensions at > run time. Use of this package is optional, and it is not part of > the standard Emacs namespace. If your package loads `cl' at run > time, that could cause name clashes for users who don't use that > package. > > However, there is no problem with using the `cl' package at compile > time, for the sake of macros. You do that like this: > > (eval-when-compile (require 'cl)) > > Hm. I think name clashes are largely a non-problem; a package author > would be insane to define cl functions/macros incompatibly, wouldn't > they? > > Ways to ameliorate this situation include splitting cl into several > separate independent libraries, moving ultra-nifty bits into subr.el, > or defining compiler macros for the more popular functions. > > If you just don't want to see the warnings then try frobbing > `byte-compile-warnings' (untested). This is entirely negating the point of Common-Lisp and the `cl' package. I don't use Microsoft-Word because I don't want to be locked into their proprietary file format. By the same token, as much as possible, I don't want to be locked into emacs lisp specificisms. Everytime there is an emacs function that have an equivalent in Common-Lisp, I'll use the Common-Lisp version. This gives me the big bonus to be able to use most of my lisp code programmed on emacs also on any other lisp environment. But I guess that this gives the same cold sweat to Stallman than to Gates, to see that some users of his programs may want to use concurent programs! What if suddently GNUS or VM or Kiwi could be compiled and used with cmucl or clisp? Horror! I don't mind if features specific to the emacs editor are hard linked to it (instead of, for example, being programmed as a nice portable Common-Lisp package). There may have valid technical reasons for it, or I could even agree with their moral reasons for it. But if I use emacs for prototyping lisp code, for scripting, or even to program some personal interactive tools, why should they and all the lisp libraries I write be locked to emacs lisp? If emacs developers are worried by name clashes, what are they waiting for implementing Common-Lisp packages? -- __Pascal_Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in reality.