Re: Return

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

MON KEY writes:
 > ,----
 > | Note that Python (at least) has adopted this approach, with a core
 > | language definition that is 99% or so independent of implementation
 > | (cf. CPython, Cython nee pyrex, Stackless Python, Jython, IronPython,
 > | and PyPy).
 > `----
 > 
 > Pshaw... Doesn't GVR eschew ++Lambda++ in p3k? Heresy!

No, YAGNI.  Even more so in Emacs Lisp:

(defmacro lambda (&rest forms) `(defun ,(gensym) ,@forms))

or something like that. ;-)

 > ,----
 > | Speaking of Common Lisp, since it has a package scheme, you might be
 > | able to implement the elisp interpreter by using the elisp
 > | interpreter, and put in in a package that uses elisp eval instead of
 > | Common Lisp's eval.
 > `----
 > 
 > Sam Steingold has explored [...]

I'll take a look.  But ...

 > Also, there are any number of legacy "Emacs like" editors

Indeed.  For unacceptably small values of "like", though.  AFAIK the
people you would expect to actually be working on those things (eg,
you mention Bruno Haible as well as Sam Steingold) use "real" Emacs
instead for production work.  I wonder why? ;-)

 > why on earth should a switch to either a Scheme/Python VM warrant
 > consideration.

I'm not suggesting switching to the Python VM, I'm proposing Python as
an example of a language with several implementations targeting
multiple VMs.  The reason for using a Scheme is that it's much lighter
weight than a Common Lisp implementation.  That may not butter your
bread, but it matters to Richard, I believe, and to the people who
work on those implementations.

 > FWIW I find it quite odd that discussions of moving the Emacs VM to
 > Guile are bandied about

"Bandied about" is quite the odd term to use for a decision that AIUI
was made more than a decade ago.  Emacs just has a long gestation
period for features. :-)