From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Guile in Emacs Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:33:33 -0400 Message-ID: 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> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1271288116 6052 80.91.229.12 (14 Apr 2010 23:35:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 23:35:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bruce.stephens@isode.com, lord@emf.net, christian@defun.dk, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 15 01:35:14 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 1O2C6w-0003c6-JU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 01:35:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48869 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O2C6w-0007Md-1b for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:35:10 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1O2C5Q-0005qn-HR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:33:36 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=50642 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O2C5P-0005pv-VD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:33:36 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1O2C5O-00042o-VT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:33:35 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:60788) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1O2C5O-00042k-Pk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:33:34 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O2C5N-0001sB-Av; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:33:33 -0400 In-reply-to: (christian.lynbech@tieto.com) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.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:123673 Archived-At: I do not understand the point about documentation though. Why would it be harder to document a common lisp based emacs than a scheme based emacs? Common Lisp has sooo much to document. The Emacs Lisp Manual would get a lot bigger if it had to include the specs of so many functions.