Re: About Emacs Modernisation Project

[rustom <rustompmody@gmail.com>]

On Jun 2, 5:47 pm, "B. T. Raven" <ni...@nihilo.net> wrote:
> rustom wrote:
> > On Jun 1, 1:40 pm, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
> > wrote:
> >> Evans Winner <tho...@unm.edu> writes:
> >>> LanX <lanx.p...@googlemail.com> writes:
> >>>     No name spaces, no real lexical variables [...]
> >>> These are not bugs, they are features.  One uses the right
> >>> tool for the job.  It is highly unlikely that the language
> >>> of choice for serious hackers working on developing large,
> >>> complex systems is going to be the same language chosen for
> >>> casual text editor users who want to quickly and simply
> >>> customize some element of their editor.  
> >> Possibly.  However, if emacs was reprogrammed in Common Lisp, you
> >> could have both.  Naive users could be provided with an environment
> >> with only dynamic binding and a unique namespace, while sophisticated
> >> programmers could use all the features of Common Lisp.  Also, as
> >> mentionned in another post, it would be easier to implement other
> >> user-friend scripting languages in Common Lisp than in emacs lisp.
>
> > I remember seeing a paper (by a German I think) in which he claimed
> > that he could *fully automatically* translate elisp to scheme.  Does
> > anyone remember this? [My google foo is not up-to-the-mark...]
>
> It might have been this (out of Freiburg and Tuebingen, 2001):
>
> http://www-pu.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/users/sperber/papers/dynami...

Yeah this may be it but now when I see it it says it cant handle eval.
The last time I saw it it said it could handle eval (at least thats
what I remember) because I remember finding it incredible
[Without trying to prove it, translating eval correctly would amount
to solving the halting problem.  For those unfamiliar with CS
technicalities this is as anomalous as making say a perpetual motion
machine]

>
> Anyway, there is menttion of the el2scm project.
>
> Ed