[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: is requiring cl bad?
David De La Harpe Golden
Re: is requiring cl bad?
Fri, 21 Dec 2012 07:05:33 +0000
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 , 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
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)
Re: is requiring cl bad?, Ivan Kanis, 2012/12/17
- Re: is requiring cl bad?, (continued)
- Re: is requiring cl bad?, Xue Fuqiao, 2012/12/16
- Re: is requiring cl bad?, Stefan Monnier, 2012/12/16
- Re: is requiring cl bad?, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2012/12/17
- Re: is requiring cl bad?, Tony Day, 2012/12/17
- Re: is requiring cl bad?, David De La Harpe Golden, 2012/12/19
- Re: is requiring cl bad?, Ivan Kanis, 2012/12/20
- Re: is requiring cl bad?, Helmut Eller, 2012/12/20
- Re: is requiring cl bad?,
David De La Harpe Golden <=
- Re: is requiring cl bad?, Helmut Eller, 2012/12/21