Re: Guile in Emacs

[christian.lynbech]

>>>>> "David" == David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

David> Emacs Lisp is streamlined for editing.  Common Lisp has its own focus.

You could say the same of Scheme.

I am also not quite sure I understand how Emacs Lisp as such is
streamlined for editing. 

Sure there are a bunch of libraries, for instance for handling buffers,
but I think of that as a library and not really an integral part of the
language. Whatever the solution, we will always have an `current-buffer'
function.

David> For an extension language, it is preferable to have a system where you
David> can read through the manual in one day and basically understand it.

Well, that is not exactly wrong, but I would maintain that you can write
a Common Lisp tutorial that you could read through and understand in a
day as easily as you can for Scheme or the current Emacs Lisp. 

Much of what is in the Common Lisp standard has the character of
libraries; you need not understand pathnames or CLOS to get started
writing functions.  

Wrt. libraries you will anyway be in for a lifelong journey, adding a
handfull on top of what is already in Emacs will not drastically change
that.


------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Christian Lynbech       | christian #\@ defun #\. dk
------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Hit the philistines three times over the head with the Elisp reference manual.
                                        - address@hidden (Michael A. Petonic)