[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Return

From: Stephen J. Turnbull
Subject: Re: Return
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 01:30:16 +0900

David Kastrup writes:

 > I don't think anybody minds the features.

IIRC rms has recently declared his dislike for CL-style keyword
arguments.  I suppose that's part of the "syntactic complexity" you
mention, but MON KEY OTOH points out cases where he'd like to use
them.  So there are some fundamental disagreements here.

There are also people who would like full-blown CL conformance in
Emacs.  You could argue they could get that with Hemlock, but then
they don't get full-blown Emacs conformance.  (I'm not sure why they
think it would be easier to turn Emacs Lisp into Common Lisp, than to
turn Hemlock into a fully compatible implementation of GNU Emacs, but
there you have it.)

 > cl does not lend itself to that approach.  Its code is highly complex
 > and utterly underdocumented.  You have to trust it to do the right
 > thing.  I hate doing that.

I think everybody agrees with all of those points, except that some
people are happy to trust now and debug later.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]