Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?

[Sam Steingold]

> * In message <address@hidden>
> * On the subject of "Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?"
> * Sent on Mon, 10 Dec 2001 13:44:33 -0700 (MST)
> * Honorable Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
>
> I don't intend to extend Emacs Lisp into something like Common Lisp.
> That would be a lot of work and would make Emacs considerably bigger
> than it is now.

Small languages require big programs.
Large languages enable small programs.

I think that while vanilla Emacs with "extended ELisp" would be bigger
than Emacs is now, Emacs with Gnus and JDE loaded would be _smaller_ in
the "extended ELisp" than in the current incarnation.
(it would also be less buggy and smaller code-wise).

> Besides which, I want to move in a different direction--towards use of
> Guile in Emacs.

that would be good enough - since if you will be able to plug in Guile,
than you will be able to plug in CLISP too, and then the users will be
able to use CLOS to extend Emacs.

-- 
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds)
Keep Jerusalem united! <http://www.onejerusalem.org/Petition.asp>
Read, think and remember! <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
Any programming language is at its best before it is implemented and used.