>>>> "Hrvoje" == Hrvoje Niksic
Hrvoje> sperber(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor])
Hrvoje> Lots of elisp code can run under Common Lisp almost
Hrvoje> unchanged. This is not true for Scheme.
> Please substantiate this. By default, for instance, `let' is
> lexically scoped in Common Lisp, which is clearly incompatible with
> Emacs Lisp.
Hrvoje> Not so by design. In fact, we were discussing introduction of a
Hrvoje> lexically scoped `let' to elisp many times. And guess what? The
Hrvoje> proposed semantics were equivalent to those used by CL -- lexical
Hrvoje> scope by default, dynamic scope for special variables.
Great. While I don't remember the proposed semantics, and don't
necessarily agree with this, this is just as easy to implement in
Hrvoje> I don't care. Emacs is not ANSI CL. If that was the
Hrvoje> impression I was giving, I apologize, because that is not what
Hrvoje> I meant.
One important benefit in swapping the extension language would be that
we could use library code not specifically written for XEmacs.
There's lots and lots of library code for both Scheme and Common Lisp.
Stripping down the language would mean we couldn't use much of it. If
we're going to hook to a Lisp engine maintained by someone else (which
we hopefully will), there's no reason to take only a part of it.
Hrvoje> I will probably not be the one doing the work, and I have not a clear
Hrvoje> idea of what it would take. This, however, should not mean I get no
Hrvoje> vote in the discussion. I know where I want to end up.
Sure. But in the end, we'll need someone who knows what it would
take. I have a pretty good idea, and the effort required is only
marginally different between Scheme and CL.
Hrvoje> The Scheme users and implementors don't have the constraint of
Hrvoje> previous implementation of Common Lisp idioms. We do, and I would
Hrvoje> like us to preserve them.
Hrvoje> I don't believe this. Common Lisp may not be perfect, but it's far
Hrvoje> too complex to simulate correctly without a *lot* of effort.
Most of it's been done. PC Scheme used to come with a substantial
emulation, and we could probably hack it to make it work for us.
Hrvoje> What kind of write-up? Haven't I sent you my discussion with Bruno
Ermh, no, you haven't ... Please do!
Hrvoje> I don't like CMU CL (far too slow and buggy IMHO),
Actually, CMU CL produces pretty much the fastest CL code around.
Unfortuntately, it only works on very few architectures.
Hrvoje> and I haven't worked with GCL much. It might be usable.
Now *that*'s what I would call slow and buggy. (Took me three days
just to get it installed without dumping core.) CLisp is
Cheers =8-} Chipsy
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla