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 :-)

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’.
>
>