From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Guile in Emacs Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:51:31 +0200 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <87ljcqqxoc.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <4B8147A9.7030504@gmail.com> <87wrxrr4md.fsf@gnu.org> <3vsk8ecg6a.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <873a0euot4.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <873a0cyv3r.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87aauiho3y.fsf_-_@lifelogs.com> <1271028837.6164.55.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <1271102739.6067.38.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <8039yz34ka.fsf@tiny.isode.net> <1271173887.6067.53.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1271231602 15635 80.91.229.12 (14 Apr 2010 07:53:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 07:53:22 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 14 09:53:22 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O1xPT-0005Js-1O for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:53:19 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46686 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O1xPR-0001Rk-NU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 03:53:17 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1O1xO2-00012T-2g for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 03:51:50 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=33248 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O1xNx-00010b-LK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 03:51:48 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O1xNv-0002BC-LP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 03:51:45 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:56374) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O1xNv-0002Al-Ad for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 03:51:43 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O1xNs-0004n8-M1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:51:40 +0200 Original-Received: from p5b2c1f76.dip.t-dialin.net ([91.44.31.118]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:51:40 +0200 Original-Received: from dak by p5b2c1f76.dip.t-dialin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:51:40 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 23 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: p5b2c1f76.dip.t-dialin.net X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.92 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:bQQMip3UisXdduxgPFLPUxXZc80= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:123617 Archived-At: Christian Lynbech writes: >>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Lord writes: > >>> Wouldn't it be about as good (and probably less work), to give up on the >>> guile idea and evolve emacs lisp (with Miles's lexical-bind changes, and >>> (one hopes) multithreading, and maybe other things)? > > Thomas> I dunno. Maybe. I'd guess that, no, that's not a > Thomas> good strategy. Four reasons come quickly to mind: ... > > Wouldn't a reasonable alternative to using a scheme implementation be to > use a Common Lisp ditto? And wouldn't that be a much closer fit > semantically to the current Emacs Lisp dialect? Emacs Lisp is streamlined for editing. Common Lisp has its own focus. For an extension language, it is preferable to have a system where you can read through the manual in one day and basically understand it. Scheme is a smaller starting point than Common Lisp. -- David Kastrup