4 ms·
Have it be in a standard Scheme or CommonLisp instead of EmacsLisp so that it actually benefited those communities with reuse.
by Pet_Ant 5y ago
Have it be in a standard Scheme or CommonLisp instead of EmacsLisp so that it actually benefited those communities with reuse.
- Qem 5y agoGuile Scheme would be great for this purpose.
- pdimitar 5y agoGerbil Scheme is quite nice too.
- aijony 5y agoBetter idea, use Guile's built in Emacs lisp engine: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/Emacs-Lisp.html#Emacs-Lisp https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/Emacs-Li...
- Pet_Ant 5y agoNo because then it is still using EmacsLisp which is dynamically scoped. The idea is really to move it over to a traditional lexically scoped Scheme.
- guenthert 5y agoAre we talking about GNU Emacs then? There seem to be a few Emacs or Emacs-like editors in various state of completion / deterioration implemented in CL. Hemlock comes to mind and Climacs.
- guenthert 5y agoFor as much as I like the grand dame of programming languages, I don't think it would be the best substitute for Emacs Lisp. CL is a fairly large language and takes considerably time to learn. An unnecessary burden for someone just wanting to customizes his/her editor. Further, an Emacs in CL obviously requires a CL interpreter/compiler. I'm afraid this limits portability as e.g. SBCL, arguably the best open source CL compiler, supports only a handful of environments. CLISP was pretty portable, but the project seems dead. I'm sure, if today (or twenty years ago) GNU Emacs would be written, Guile might be chosen as implementation / extension language.
- dTal 5y agoScheme isn't large. There are many portable, fast implementations.