From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: Common Lisp interpretation by emacs Date: 2000/03/24 Message-ID: <3162910141905443@naggum.no>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 601858534 References: <38D9F189.F9748B84@hkucs.org> <38da9c1d@news.sentex.net> <87pusl2olg.fsf@2xtreme.net> <3162858618807593@naggum.no> mail-copies-to: never Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 953922762 4373 195.0.192.66 (24 Mar 2000 18:32:42 GMT) Organization: Naggum Software; vox: +47 8800 8879; fax: +47 8800 8601; http://www.naggum.no User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Mar 2000 18:32:42 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp * Barry Margolin | #1 and #2 don't seem to be related to the dialect of Lisp that Emacs | happens to be written in. I prefixed what I wrote with "what I have wanted that can't be done in the current Emacs are:", so I assume you ignored that context instead of merely overlooking it, but it is in fact crucial, even to your supposed counter-argument. Emacs Lisp has some _fundemental_ limitations that Common Lisp the language and its several implementations don't have. obviously, however, you _could_ do anything in any language given enough effort and resources, but whether you want to is _usually_ a matter of convenience and pragmatics for most people -- the absence of available resources is usually an argument against "can". if you will, Emacs Lisp makes certain tasks prohibitively inconvenient and/or impractical. for me, that matters a lot. if it doesn't matter to you, I expect a free implementation soon. | #3 doesn't depend on ANSI CL, but just the fact that most CL | implementations also include foreign function interfaces; but there's no | good reason why a similar FFI couldn't be included in Emacs Lisp. then you should have no objection to "then go do it", right? I promise that I'll listen to your argument _after_ you have done it. #:Erik