From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: John Paul Wallington Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Some racism in emacs! Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 10:46:36 +0100 Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+gnu-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <87r86cizgj.fsf@indigo.shootybangbang.com> References: <87add2tjro.fsf@thalassa.informatimago.com> <87n0h2jldb.fsf@indigo.shootybangbang.com> <873citkmk3.fsf@thalassa.informatimago.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1054547848 26835 80.91.224.249 (2 Jun 2003 09:57:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 09:57:28 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+gnu-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jun 02 11:57:26 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 19Mm4E-0006yg-00 for ; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 11:57:26 +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 19Mm2Y-00016O-VD for gnu-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 05:55:42 -0400 Original-Path: shelby.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!host217-44-221-72.range217-44.btcentralplus.COM!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help Original-Lines: 75 Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: host217-44-221-72.range217-44.btcentralplus.com (217.44.221.72) Original-X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1054547431 9218237 217.44.221.72 (16 [170119]) X-Orig-Path: indigo.shootybangbang.com!news X-Attribution: jpw X-Face: R(_z-rF:grdKO.*u`n); p.i$Eiz=h^CO5eDYv"4:K@#\HN09*Ykx}}B{kF/KH}%f_o^Wp 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:10467 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.help:10467 Pascal Bourguignon wrote: > John Paul Wallington writes: >> The cl library, like Common Lisp, is big and hard to subset. > > Who asked for a subset? The coding conventions say not to make runtime use of cl. IMHO, the most likely to succeed way to nullify this convention is to split cl into independent parts and for libraries to require what they need at runtime. But subsetting cl is almost as hard as subsetting Common Lisp. >> 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. I see. But cl doesn't magically make Emacs Lisp into Common Lisp. I guess you could write sizable code that does the same thing under both, but would it particularly suit either? > 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? Because that's the way it is. Emacs implements its own dialect. I imagine an Emacs written in Common Lisp would probably be better off using Common Lisp as its extension language. > If emacs developers are worried by name clashes, what are they waiting > for implementing Common-Lisp packages?