On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 16:51 +0100, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:IIRC, someone raised the topic that emerge Clisp into Guile in 2011,
> Hi,
> > In terms of strategy, I think Guile’s focus should remain primarily
> on
> > Scheme variants, and ELisp. Other language front-ends are of course
> > welcome, but we must keep an eye on what the demand is.
>
> What about common lisp is scheme a lisp or is CL a scheme :-)
>
but what's the status now?
> Anyway to support CL I would think that we need to support placing
> properties
> on symbols, e,g. currently a symbol slot is a variable, but to
> effectively support CL I would go for
> /Stefan
>
>
>
> Den 21 nov 2012 14:26 skrev "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>:
> Hi!
>
> nalaginrut <nalaginrut@gmail.com> skribis:
>
> > I switch to lua branch then compiled it and try, seems some
> bugs there,
> > it can't run successfully:
> > -------------------cut--------------------
> > scheme@(guile-user)> ,L lua
> > Happy hacking with Lua! To switch back, type `,L scheme'.
> > lua@(guile-user)> x=1
>
> Maybe you need a semicolon here?
>
> > And I checked the code, it doen't use Guile inner LALR
> parser.
> > Anybody point me out what is the suggested parser
> implementation?
>
> (system base lalr).
>
> > And is there anyone ever evaluated the efficiency about the
> non-scheme
> > language implemented within Guile?
>
> I don’t think so. Only the Scheme and Emacs Lisp front-end
> are
> reasonably mature, anyway.
>
> > Anyway, this wouldn't be a big problem, since Guile could be
> the
> > future dynamic language compiler collection, it could be
> optimized
> > later.
>
> FWIW, I don’t quite buy the “dynamic language compiler
> collection”.
> Others tried this before (Parrot), with some success in terms
> of
> supported languages, but not much beyond that.
>
> In terms of strategy, I think Guile’s focus should remain
> primarily on
> Scheme variants, and ELisp. Other language front-ends are of
> course
> welcome, but we must keep an eye on what the demand is.
>
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.
>