"Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull(a)sk.tsukuba.ac.jp&gt; writes: I believe multiple extension languages are a wholly different kind of trouble. One I am too scared to even contemplate! *shiver* I'd call n "reasonably small," if Erik's packages scheme can be made to work. I am not yet 100% convinced that it can work flawlessly, but we'll see. Common Lisp reader is very flexible. The whole point is for the contributors to be able to keep using it -- for compatibility, if nothing else. Undoubtedly. There are people who find the prospect of Perl-in-Emacs exciting. I don't know. Hopefully, he will. You would have to ask Bruno this question. Yup. Wow. Then I'm surely not confident. :-) That's not how Webster defines the word, but hey -- not that I will argue English semantics with a native speaker! Yeah, I notice that. More to the point, Michael gets more credit because he is prepared to do the actual work, rather than only argue about it. That's a great point pro Michael, but means nothing in terms of general CL-vs.-Scheme arguments. Yes, but I fear that the implementation will be buggy, that the elisp emulation will be inadequate, and that we'll wind up with n00 users, the rest of the folks happily using XEmacs 21.x. But I fear the same in a CL-based XEmacs 2x, so the above was a digression. You'd better doubt my willingness to do that! I don't have a sufficient amount of time to devote to that, nor do I have the necessary knowledge; I thought I have made this clear. My past contributions to XEmacs were more or less elaborate hacks and, when I'm in a good mood, bugfixes. Porting XEmacs to clisp is clearly outside my scope. I argue for clisp and against Scheme 48 because I feel I would prefer using (in the sense of "enhancing") the finished product. I don't think that at all. Noone has expressed their wishes to do a substantial amount of work on this, except for Michael. Following your line of thought, we are more or less stuck with his choice of extension/implementation language because he will do the work. Yup. But unlike you, I consider it just as likely with Scheme as with Common Lisp. Oh yes I do! See above. I cannot. I am certainly not the person you want me to find. Thanks, but no, thanks. -- Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr&gt; | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia --------------------------------+-------------------------------- Do not meddle in the affairs of troff, for it is subtle and quick to anger.