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: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 20:35:50 +0200 Message-ID: <87y4f0kos9.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <561A19AB.5060001@cumego.com> <8737xf9je9.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87pp0fm0j3.fsf@gnu.org> <87r3kusx8z.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83lhb26eb9.fsf@gnu.org> <876126key3.fsf@gnu.org> <83fv1a6bfu.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1weo7u9.fsf@gnu.org> <83zizi3qr0.fsf@gnu.org> <87lhb1n81y.fsf@gnu.org> <83si594wt3.fsf@gnu.org> <87io64iigs.fsf@gnu.org> <87r3kso1gr.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87wpuks5ek.fsf@T420.taylan> <83vba4i1z3.fsf@gnu.org> <87pp0cqgjf.fsf@T420.taylan> <83twpoi0sp.fsf@gnu.org> <878u70qf75.fsf@T420.taylan> <83mvvghydi.fsf@gnu.org> <5623E3B5.8050407@dancol.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1445193367 31661 80.91.229.3 (18 Oct 2015 18:36:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 18:36:07 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Daniel Colascione Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Oct 18 20:36:06 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZnsoQ-0000dI-2D for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 20:36:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35142 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZnsoP-0006xU-1P for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 14:36:05 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36787) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZnsoL-0006xE-GP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 14:36:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZnsoK-0007yz-Mv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 14:36:01 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:50940) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZnsoC-0007yL-HQ; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 14:35:52 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36526 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ZnsoB-000223-F7; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 14:35:52 -0400 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CE884DF535; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 20:35:50 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <5623E3B5.8050407@dancol.org> (Daniel Colascione's message of "Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:23:49 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:191997 Archived-At: Daniel Colascione writes: > On 10/18/2015 10:52 AM, John Wiegley wrote: >>>>>>> Eli Zaretskii writes: >> >>> When we need to use Guile APIs from Emacs. That's one of the >>> advantages of using Guile: that it implements a lot of functionality >>> which it would be good to have in Emacs. >> >> Total agreement! I've been wanting a Guile-based Emacs since 1998, if >> for no other reason than that I could have used call/cc in Eshell, >> instead of the horrendous CPS hack that exists there now. > > You have generators in elisp already. Well, lexical-binding is a lot more recent than the start of the GuileEmacs project, and part of the appeal of GuileEmacs was indeed to have lexical bindings. But that does not make GUILE worse but rather Elisp better. > Wanting to use one language is, IMHO, a poor choice for wanting to > completely swap out a language. I am opposed to Guilemacs, not only on > technical grounds, but also because elisp is essential to Emacs (and > not just an optional extension system), and I want its implementation > to live alongside the rest of the Emacs core code. I'm not convinced that it's a bad idea to separate the Elisp implementation more from the Emacs core code. It provides a well-documented interface between the two: hacking the C code in Emacs remains a considerable inside job and is not documented on its own. So I consider this a strength rather than a weakness of the GuileEmacs proposition in the long term. -- David Kastrup