Re: cc-langs.el

[Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>]

Kevin Rodgers <ihs_4664@yahoo.com> writes:
> The Common Lisp functions have a well-specified interface, and adding
> new functions (vs. modifying existing functions) should not affect
> Emacs' behavior.  What's to think about?

_Emacs lisp is not common lisp_.

That means that however worthy these functions are (and I know they are
-- remember, I'm a common-lisp _fan_*), you can't just plop them into
elisp wholesale, you've got at least look at them, and how they fit into
elisp, and make decisions; interfaces and functions that are right for
common-lisp are not necessarily right for elisp.  For a lot of
functions, that takes a fair amount of time.

I realize that for sanity's sake, it would be best to use the same (or
at least very similar) interfaces for elisp functions as their
common-lisp counterparts, but none-the-less, you can't just plop.

-Miles

* Personally I'd love it if emacs used common-lisp instead of elisp.
  But it doesn't.
-- 
We are all lying in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
-Oscar Wilde