Re: guile and emacs and elisp, oh my!

[David Kastrup]

David Engster <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
>> David Engster <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Tom Tromey <address@hidden> writes:
>>>> I think it is beneficial to a program like Emacs to have a single
>>>> extension language.  A single language makes both reuse and debugging
>>>> simpler.  Multiple languages equals chaos.
>>>
>>> I tend to agree. The priority should be to make Emacs Lisp more
>>> powerful, for example by adding stuff from the CL library to the
>>> language core.
>>
>> The cl library is an incredibly complex hack.  It makes debugging and
>> figuring out things quite harder.
>>
>> It makes more sense to switch to a system which deals with such
>> complexity in more straightforward ways.
>>
>> So I tend to see your wish of "make Emacs Lisp more powerful instead" as
>> more expensive and painful in the long run.
>
> With "stuff from the CL library" I'm not talking about features like
> 'lexical-let' or even the whole thing. What I'd really like to see, at
> least in the short term, are things like 'remove-if', 'delete-if',
> 'every', 'notany', 'count', 'loop', etc.

But most of the stuff working with predicates is a rather bad idea to
use extensively without proper and efficient closures.

Putting that stuff into Emacs without a better integration into the
engine than the CL hackery is going to encourage programming styles that
lead to inefficient solutions.

-- 
David Kastrup