From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: guile and elisp Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:43:57 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87tyrzfrik.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1269859361 15848 80.91.229.12 (29 Mar 2010 10:42:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:42:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 29 12:42:37 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-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 1NwCQV-00030D-Pn for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:42:36 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49099 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NwCQV-0001Jj-9H for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 06:42:35 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NwCQS-0001JU-7j for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 06:42:32 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=35427 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NwCQQ-0001J3-Ob for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 06:42:31 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NwCQP-00038e-2i for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 06:42:30 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:62298 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NwCQP-00038a-0d; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 06:42:29 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 876DBA6026; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 06:42:28 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=EVkGiyPmk/b8 fhHJoQaqNs/NjB0=; b=KXmFtZV49yZrgqrP2jlHcrOdksNjvy/w/6g/CN969eAt JblRauEjtGdQ+tP8yR7ijt1hZcxX1G9wqGZ8GeQdhKVAVRHPtpI+1bWvaAcqZc6o /cpn3agxsm1LO1amhhjwQNDE78qXKH26UHIIQAC1fjAuwSWfU3iMucF8um0YEgM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=KWUqA1 IPoFrm8VWTaRSE9zdNxrwzPde78tSACWra03vD5o7Stn1lwD+CB9484Z4LG79aA6 XhLbAWtH8nzXTe1Xj6f3R/EROSZfpFiPYyK/l2n/QG7piRMCXtBuErYwHQ/MtsGe Iz1ZPF3crJAfTyHyxAnt/FHkwmzy/l19CHywc= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 733BDA6025; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 06:42:27 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from unquote (unknown [83.202.33.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B3611A6024; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 06:42:25 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87tyrzfrik.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s=22'?= =?utf-8?Q?s?= message of "Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:42:27 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C4A26F34-3B1F-11DF-B000-D033EE7EF46B-02397024!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:10110 Archived-At: Hi! On Mon 29 Mar 2010 10:42, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > - There=E2=80=99s currently no Scheme code that interacts with Elisp. = Thus, > code that will be written specifically to interact with Elisp code > can adjust to do the right thing, e.g., make explicit calls to > =E2=80=98canonicalize-boolean=E2=80=99, etc., as Mark suggested. This is certainly an option on the table. However it would be nice if we could avoid it, if Scheme code were "nil-safe" by default. > - Scheme=E2=80=99s #f/() are more expressive that elisp=E2=80=99s nil. = They can be > easily mapped to nil, whereas it seems hard to automatically choose > whether to map nil to #f or to (). This also supports the idea of > requiring Scheme code to make explicit conversions. Sure, though it's easy to map all three values to "not", "null?", and "boolean?", in those predicates' incarnations in both languages. For that reason I think we can avoid conversion of values. > - Elisp should be considered =E2=80=9Clegacy=E2=80=9D. Whenever someth= ing can=E2=80=99t be > made transparent, I=E2=80=99d consider Scheme first-class and Elisp > second-class. Hoo, that's a really broad definition of legacy. Even if all elisp hackers were to stop hacking elisp today, we'd probably still have elisp code 10 years from now. Hopefully we don't have to make a "first-class"/"second-class" distinction, besides the obvious one that Scheme is first-class to Scheme, and Elisp to Elisp, and so on. Cheers, Andy --=20 http://wingolog.org/