Re: Emacs Lisp and Guile

[Richard Stallman]

    I think that both these restrictions point in the same direction: the
    way forward is to define the primitives by compiling a preprocessed
    version of the Emacs source code, not by trying to implement them in
    Scheme.

What precisely is "a preprocessed version"?  What I think we should do
is modify the code in Emacs so that it works with Scheme.

    Unless this picture changes, I don't plan to do any further
    significant work on the prototype translator.

Putting aside the issue of the Emacs primitives, which we are going to
handle with C code and should not be implemented in Scheme, does it
need any more work?  Not counting those primitives, are there Emacs
Lisp features it does not handle?  Or is it adequate as it stands?
(If so, why call it a "prototype"?  Why not call it "finished"?)