RE: Emacs and Guile

[Drew Adams]

> The plan is not to replace Elisp with Scheme, but rather to replace
> Emacs's Elisp implementation with Guile's Elisp implementation.

I see.  Yes, I did not understand that, so my reaction might well be off the
mark.  But perhaps it depends on what you mean by "implementation".  Do you mean
to replace only what is done now using C code by Guile (Scheme?) code?

If it's essentially one-to-one C-for-Guile/Scheme then I might not have a
problem with it.  But I would not want to see the new "implementation" extend
beyond what we currently use C for.  (And in fact I would like to see more of
what is currently implemented in C be moved to Emacs Lisp.)

Admittedly, I am ignorant of just what is being proposed.  I did indeed think
that the proposal was to in some way "base" Emacs on Scheme instead of on Emacs
Lisp.  I saw statements like these, which probably gave me the wrong impression:

*  "[Guile] has a lot to gain in terms of portability before it can be
considered seriously as an alternative to ELisp, or even its sibling on equal
rights."

*  "...[Guile]...in comparison with ELisp"

*  "I don't think moving away from Elisp is very high priority for Emacs right
now."

*  "the range of Guile-based applications in Emacs is quite narrow."

Such statements gave me the impression that Guile is being proposed "as an
alternative to Elisp", and that it was being proposed, at least in part, to
"move away from Elisp".

It is true, however, that you refer to "using Guile as the default Elisp
implementation."  I took a quick look at your summary here:
http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/proposal/review/google/gsoc2012/bpt/23002.

The first part of your summary refers to using Guile "as the basis for Emacs's
Lisp implementation".  And that's what you're repeating now.

But there is some ambiguity in the second part of your summary: the phrase
"begin replacing the Elisp interpreter with Guile".  That could be understood as
replacing the Elisp interpreter (which interprets Elisp) with a Guile
interpreter (which interprets Guile? Scheme?).

Similarly, "implement a basic form of interaction with Guile."

So it sounded to me like you were proposing both to (a) reimplement Elisp using
Guile and (b) replace Elisp by Guile as Emacs's user/developer interpreter
language.