"Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull(a)sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> writes:
> >>>>> "Hrvoje" == Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> writes:
>
> Hrvoje> I think both [CL and Scheme] specify characters as
> Hrvoje> strings, as you surely guessed.
>
> Huh?
Damn. I meant "*and* strings." Sorry for the confusion.
> >> >> 2. What constructs in one dialect would be difficult or
> >> >> impossible to implement efficiently in the other?
>
> Hrvoje> Why is this an issue? I don't *want* to implement Scheme
> Hrvoje> in CL, nor do I want to implement CL in Scheme.
>
> >> Some people _are_ thinking in those terms. So it's an issue.
> >> Closed, from your standpoint. Still open, from mine.
>
> Hrvoje> Can you name some of these people? What exactly do they
> Hrvoje> want to achieve by implementing CL in Scheme, or vice
> Hrvoje> versa?
>
> (1) Michael Sperber.
I've never read his messages that way, except in theoretical terms
("CL *can* be implemented in Scheme.") Do you know something that I
don't?
> (2) Keeping CL proponents happy if the engine turns out to be
> Scheme, among other things.
I don't think Scheme will ever satisfy CL proponents.
> Hrvoje> And what does that have to do with what we are
> Hrvoje> discussing here (extension language for XEmacs)?
>
> Supporting multiple dialects of extension language. Which we
> already know you don't like. That doesn't mean nobody likes it.
> More important, it doesn't mean that that won't be reached as a
> compromise solution.
More important, it doesn't mean that the development won't split.
Multiple extension languages sounds like big trouble.
> >> I'm trying to get an understanding of the advantages and
> >> disadvantages of the dialects. When you take advantage of my
> >> ignorance to be legalistic like that, it doesn't build my
> >> confidence in your position.
>
> Hrvoje> I have no idea what you mean here. I haven't "taken
> Hrvoje> advantage" of you. You noticed that Bruno should maintain
> Hrvoje> font-lock.c, and I said he shouldn't. I see no reason in
> Hrvoje> this world why clisp maintainer should maintain XEmacs
> Hrvoje> code.
>
> I don't either, and the fact that you answer by implying I think he
> should is what I mean by legalistic.
I definitely thought it was what you meant.
> You're avoiding answering the question of the dis/advantages of
> CLisp by pointing out my ignorance of what is part of the Lisp
> engine proper and what is not.
And you are insulting me by putting intentions in my mouth that I
never had. I had explained the technical merits of clisp before on
this list (I have forwarded some of Bruno's mails), and so did others
(Reginald Perry, for one.)
> >> Can we assert with some confidence that we will be able to
> >> depend on a separately-maintained Common Lisp engine,
> >> presumably CLisp, or not?
>
> Hrvoje> That would be the whole point of the move.
>
> I know that, and you know that I know, I hope. Now explain why you
> have _confidence_ that something as large and standard-ridden as CLisp
> is going to be a satisfactory substrate for XEmacs.
If enough work is done on ensuring it is, I don't see why it wouldn't
be a good choice. Define "confidence."
> Having done that, explain why you have confidence it is going to
> stay _both_ satisfactory and separately-maintained.
Because otherwise the whole thing would make no sense. If this goal
cannot be met with clisp, then clisp is not the right choice.
> Michael is on speaking terms with Scheme, and its implementations.
There is no way I can compete with Michael.
--
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
Then... his face does a complete change of expression. It goes from
a "Vengeance is mine" expression, to a "What the fuck" blank look.
