Re: Emacs Lisp and Guile

[Sam Steingold]

> * In message <address@hidden>
> * On the subject of "Re: Emacs Lisp and Guile"
> * Sent on Fri, 2 Aug 2002 16:14:21 -0600 (MDT)
> * Honorable Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
> ...
> This approach is unacceptable.  There are hundreds of such variables.
> If we had to create several macros-and-functions for each one, and
> document them, that would be a gigantic amount of work (which we
> cannot afford to do) and would result in a bloated and cumbersome
> system.
> 
> These variables in Lisp must be variables in Scheme as well.
> 
> We should extend Guile so that its mechanism for handling variables
> dynamically is up to the job; then we should use that mechanism for
> these variables.

yeah - let's extend Guile to be a kind of Common Lisp.

Loading Emacs Lisp into CLISP was a weekend exercise for me a couple of
years ago.  It works perfectly (tested on Emacs calendar).

Loading Emacs Lisp into Guile requires major extensions.
It might be more fun this way, but if you want to get the job done,
this is the sure way to fail.

A lot of _really_ smart people contributed to the design of Common Lisp.
It is a shame that you want to throw away all that good work and
redesign everything from scratch.

-- 
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running RedHat7.3 GNU/Linux
<http://www.camera.org> <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
<http://www.mideasttruth.com/> <http://www.palestine-central.com/links.html>
There's always free cheese in a mouse trap.