"Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull(a)sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> writes:
Hrvoje> Multiple extension languages sounds like big
What do you think "elisp:foo-n", n goes from 1 to 1000, is, if all the
foo-n are defined in base Common Lisp too, but differently?
I believe multiple extension languages are a wholly different kind of
trouble. One I am too scared to even contemplate! *shiver*
Obviously, I think that that is the same problem as multiple
extension languages, of perhaps somewhat lesser degree. I take it
you think it is not a problem (most likely because you believe n is
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.
If we make "old ELisp" available as an option, who's
going to police
the contributors who continue to use it?
The whole point is for the contributors to be able to keep using it --
for compatibility, if nothing else.
And there are some people who find the prospect exciting.
Undoubtedly. There are people who find the prospect of Perl-in-Emacs
Bruno does not seem to be an expert on XEmacs internals. And he has
committed to extensions needed by XEmacs, not to implementation
changes needed by XEmacs. Can you assert that there are none of the
latter? Will Bruno go so far as to change internals of CLisp to fit
I don't know. Hopefully, he will. You would have to ask Bruno this
Hrvoje> If enough work is done on ensuring it is, I don't
Hrvoje> [CLisp] wouldn't be a good choice [as a substrate for
"Enough work" can be one hell of a lot of work.
Hrvoje> Define "confidence."
The _definition_ of confidence is a written proposal with a schedule
(cf. Fred Brooks, Ed Yourdon, Watts Humphrey, ad nauseum).
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!
I have no thought of _asking_ anyone for that. But one of the
attractions of Scheme for me is that Michael is already moving in
the direction of a written proposal,
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.
That gives me some confidence that a Scheme implementation will
happen, with few defects, in a timely fashion, with its necessary
documentation, if it gets a green light.
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
Hrvoje> Because otherwise the whole thing would make no
Hrvoje> If this goal cannot be met with clisp, then clisp is not
Hrvoje> the right choice.
So tell us how we're going to meet the goal. I don't doubt your
desire or willingness to work and to help coordinate with the CLisp
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.
You're the obvious candidate that participants in this
will look to for managing the clean up if anything does go wrong
with a CL engine, don't you think?
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.
rm -rf xemacs-22; cvs co -rr21_release xemacs
Sure, this is pessimistic. But such disasters happen, and we need
to be prepared for the possibility, and to have a plan to avoid it.
Yup. But unlike you, I consider it just as likely with Scheme as with
Hrvoje> There is no way I can compete with Michael.
You don't have to.
Oh yes I do! See above.
Not even to get me to agree that CL is the way to go. But
expertise _is_ an advantage for Scheme. It would be nice if you
could find someone to play the same role for CL.
I cannot. I am certainly not the person you want me to find. Thanks,
but no, thanks.
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