"Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull(a)sk.tsukuba.ac.jp&gt; writes: Well, from reading the previous URLs on future directions of XEmacs with respect to scripting lang (lisp/scheme) it seemed that the preposed step 1 was to cleanup the cruft a little, at which point it may (possibly) be feasable to use swig to wrap the C part and expose it to other languages. Admittedly one would get a very lispish API for other languages. but I dont see that having C implement a lisp function being a real problem here (maybe its just me), if a lisp function can call the C function, or a perl sub can call a function that smells very lispish because it operates "like" a lisp programmer would expect. ie. in this case the perl guy can still call the function, and maybe somebody then wraps many of these lisp feeling functions into an OO perl framework, to give a less lisp feel to the API. This would really be the interesting part. If I can find a more generic solution than what witme is using on this currently, then I might be in a better position to talk of this. I have not fully beaten this to death in witme at the moment, but I have ideas on the wing to play with. Heh, I'll keep this in mind :) though I'd like to be a lot more sure that my ideas work before forceing another branch of emacs on the world. -- --------------------------------------------------- It's the question, http://witme.sourceforge.net If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard