From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: ilisp verse eli Date: 2000/11/29 Message-ID: <3184486815328756@naggum.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 699079715 References: <87y9y5ysjq.fsf@sage.cortland.com> <975367957.990191@cpl2500.cit.org.by> <87ofz1ym5o.fsf@sage.cortland.com> <87ofz05qf6.fsf@orion.bln.pmsf.de> <3A23F850.7000003@everest.com> mail-copies-to: never Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 975500221 25301 195.0.192.66 (29 Nov 2000 12:17:01 GMT) Organization: Naggum Software; vox: +47 800 35477; gsm: +47 93 256 360; fax: +47 93 270 868; http://naggum.no; http://naggum.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.7 Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Nov 2000 12:17:01 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp * Sunil Mishra | But what | really got to me was that eli did not respect the paradigms that other | lisp modes follow, such as M-p and M-n for previous and next command. Yes, C-c p and C-c n are massively annoying, but rebinding them to M-p and M-n is really quite simple. You're _supposed_ to make your own bindings that fit your own needs in Emacs, so while not excessively sympathetic to your plight, I agree that the default should be more in line with other packages. I can't live without the multiple listeners and the background streams in eli, nor without any of the other support for multiprocessing in the same Lisp image. Last I checked, ilisp couldn't deal with multiprocessing at all, possibly because CMUCL and CLISP don't have real multiprocessing so there is no need for it there. #:Erik -- Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000: Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.