Holger Schauer <schauer(a)coling.uni-freiburg.de> writes:
Hrvoje> Not so by design. In fact, we were discussing
Hrvoje> of a lexically scoped `let' to elisp many times. And guess
Hrvoje> what? The proposed semantics were equivalent to those used
Hrvoje> by CL -- lexical scope by default, dynamic scope for special
Excuse me, Hrovje, where is this an argument for "not so by design"?
To rephrase: current behaviour of `let' is by no means considered a
We're arguing about probably having to change a lot of
Emacs Lisp code
Only the code that bogusly uses special variables without declaring
them as such. This code would probably be easy enough to fix (easier
than ebola). Our byte-compiler even now warns of such code.
Hrvoje> I don't care. Emacs is not ANSI CL. If that was
Hrvoje> impression I was giving, I apologize, because that is not
Hrvoje> what I meant.
But, what is then the point of substituting Emacs Lisp with another
non-sense Lisp ?
Why do you call non-sense anything that is not strictly ANSI
I don't get it. If we substitute Emacs Lisp with something else,
would like to have an ANSI CL system (preferred) or a
state-of-the-art RSR5-Scheme system. And, my favourite, if somebody
wants to replace the existing lisp engine, go for a language engine
that allows support for Emacs-Lisp, Common Lisp and Scheme (and perl
or tcl, perhaps).
Yeah, and Java and C++. Why not add SNOBOL, for good measure?
Hrvoje> a clear idea of what it would take. This, however,
Hrvoje> not mean I get no vote in the discussion. I know where I
Hrvoje> want to end up.
Please, say so, loud and clearly.
I did, but you weren't listening.
(BTW: I haven't used CMUCL 18a, only the old 17f version. On
this old version certainly was slow [no high speed garbage
collection] and contained some bugs [especially the ffi], but I
never encountered any bugs on a grown-old 17f on Sun Systems.
17f coredumped on me even on trivial examples. :-(
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
The end of the world is coming... SAVE YOUR BUFFERS!