Holger Schauer <schauer(a)coling.uni-freiburg.de> writes:
> Well, if you just consider the Elisp currently at the Lisp archive
> or the ones shipping with XEmacs, anything might be fine. But what
> about the guys who have written their own private `foo'-package ?
> Force a recompile and have them fix their surprisingly-now-buggy
> code which has been legal elisp for years ?
All changes lead to such results. Why are you so surprised at this?
> Hrvoje> Why do you call non-sense anything that is not strictly ANSI
> Hrvoje> conformant?
>
> If you could tell me where the sense is of using some language (or
> even worse: an implementation) not standarized when standarized
> versions exist ... ?
When using a subset of a standardized language, you can still write
conformant programs. The reason to use the subset instead of the
unabridged experience is, of course, efficiency.
> Haha. I was just thinking of the re-occuring threads in comp.emacs.*
> but certainly won't want that for myself. But if the engine would be
> able to support language X, and there is somebody who wants to
> implement and use X, hey, who am I stopping him from doing so ?
*I* will stop him, personally if it comes to that. :-)
> Hrvoje> I did, but you weren't listening.
> Nope, you were not. Do you want to replace Emacs Lisp with (a
> substrate of a) Common Lisp (_implementation_) or do you want to two
> concurrent lisp engines ? AFAIU, you want the former, but I'm by no
> means sure.
So you were listening after all. :-) Yes, I would like to see the
former.
--
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
I'm a Lisp variable -- bind me!
