[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Emacs and Guile status (was Re: Guile is a great idea, but where's t
From: |
Neil Jerram |
Subject: |
Re: Emacs and Guile status (was Re: Guile is a great idea, but where's the community?) |
Date: |
04 Jan 2004 12:25:35 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 |
>>>>> "Ken" == Ken Raeburn <address@hidden> writes:
Ken> There was a bit of push-back from some of the Emacs developers, too.
Ken> Some "Guile compatibility might be nice, but no way are we going to
Ken> even consider replacing the working Lisp engine" (something I'm merely
Ken> hoping to defer any decisions or arguments on for a while), some "what
Ken> a waste of effort, nobody cares about Guile or Scheme" type attitudes,
Ken> "don't fix what ain't broke", etc. Others, including RMS, do seem to
Ken> want at least the Guile compatibility. (Well, unless things have
Ken> changed in the past year or so.)
This seems to mix up 2 issues that I would think could be easily
disentangled.
1. A hypothetical future switchover from Elisp to Guile engine, for
the core Emacs distribution.
It should be obvious that this is nowhere in sight yet, I would think.
2. Macro work on the Emacs codebase to allow intrepid individuals to
play with using the Guile engine in Emacs, with negligible impact
on core usage of the Elisp engine.
It should be an executive decision - presumably RMS's - whether this
is a Good Thing or not. RMS should make his view clear and public,
and then other Emacs developers should stop carping.
Ken> I need to spend a little time getting back up to speed on the state of
Ken> things in the Emacs development world, but I'm hoping to pick up this
Ken> work again soon. No reason other people can't help out with it too,
Ken> though....
How would one start to get involved here? (Not that I have any time
myself, but perhaps the answer is useful for someone else.)
Neil