sperber(a)Informatik.Uni-Tuebingen.De (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) writes:
Someone (Hrvoje?) proposed that we change the semantics of let to
work
like in Common Lisp,
It has been discussed multiple times in the past. In fact, it would
have already been done if the fate hadn't transpired against Chuck and
Ben working on XEmacs.
This would entail changing existing Emacs Lisp code in an
incompatible fashion.
Can you explain what you mean by incompatible?
Reggie> I was sort of hoping that it would be easy to point to
Reggie> Graham's common lisp book and Keene's CLOS book or Dybvig's
Reggie> scheme book and say that the base language looks just like
Reggie> this.
The only case where we won't be able to do this is if we provide a
stripped-down Common Lisp,
Again, it depends on how you implement the "stripped-down" part.
I have obviously introduced needless confusion by that term.
I'm glad we agree that both existing Scheme engines and existing
Common Lisp engines would make viable substrates for XEmacs. The fact
that we have a choice between two good systems means that the end
result will be an improvement, no matter what we do. (At least as
long as we actually do do it.)
I don't think it will get done in the near future, at least as far as
Common Lisp is concerned. You appear to be the only one seriously
interested in doing (a part of) the work.
--
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
Do not meddle in the affairs of troff, for it is subtle and quick
to anger.