Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?

[Sam Steingold]

> * In message <address@hidden>
> * On the subject of "Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?"
> * Sent on Tue, 11 Dec 2001 09:37:25 +0100
> * Honorable Per Abrahamsen <address@hidden> writes:
>
> Sam Steingold <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > that would be good enough - since if you will be able to plug in Guile,
> 
> The idea isn't to "plug in" Guile, but to use Guile as the native
> language, and emulate Emacs Lisp (via. translation) on top of that.

this would be very unfortunate.
I hoped that that in the process of replacing EL with Guile the
interface would be cleaned sufficiently so that Guile would be easily
replaceable with other languages (CL, Python &c).

> > able to use CLOS to extend Emacs.
> Users can already use CLOS in Emacs, see eieio.el.

1. it is not distributed with Emacs, so the standard Emacs packages,
   like Gnus and c-mode, cannot use it.

2. it is probably slow compared to a native CLOS implementation.

-- 
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds)
Keep Jerusalem united! <http://www.onejerusalem.org/Petition.asp>
Read, think and remember! <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
The world is coming to an end.  Please log off.