[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: is requiring cl bad?

From: David De La Harpe Golden
Subject: Re: is requiring cl bad?
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 07:05:33 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.11) Gecko/20121122 Icedove/10.0.11

On 20/12/12 09:16, Helmut Eller wrote:

Have you actually taken a "hard look" at Ron Garret's lexicons?
What  was your experience?  I played with them a few years back, but I quickly
concluded that lexicons are only a crude prototype

Well, the last version I looked much at was ~2.0 when he started to reuse packages extensively as part of the underlying implementation (something I disliked actually [1], but he saw lexicons as a complete replacement for packages, I remember in the CL case I would have preferred if they had been independent facilities (but my concerns about packages vs. lexicons in the CL cases /would not apply/ here in emacs land, because there are no packages))

and that it was never used in the "field"; not something I
would use.

Not exactly mature, no - but hey, was new, shrug. Anyway, there's presumably no way at his /implementation/ could be reused for emacs unless emacs was first made into a common lisp.

However, I mentioned lexicons as something to look at for inspiration for a hypothetical emacs system: the quality of Ron's actual implementation for [C]CL is not of particular concern for that purpose, in fact you could avoid looking at it completely (though it appears to be liberally licensed) and just read the paper for that purpose.

Emacs lisp is lexically scoped now after all.

If you want Scheme-like modules based on lexical scoping you will also
need hygienic macros.  (Something that Common Lisp nicely avoids.)

Ron actually presented lexicons plus an escaping hack as an /alternative/ to scheme-style hygienic macros in his paper, mind, you may or may not be convinced that's better than a hygienic macro DSL, not sure I was.

I figure implementation innards would need amendment regardless in the emacs case, practically if not in theory (I didn't mean to suggest lexicons be built on top of existing facilities at a purely lisp level or something in the emacs case, whereas despite CCL-isms, Ron used mostly portable CL)

[1] http://coding.derkeiler.com/Archive/Lisp/comp.lang.lisp/2008-12/msg00359.html

reply via email to

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