Re: Emacs Lisp and Guile

[Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]]

>>>>> "RMS" == Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

RMS> The clean approach is that each of these Lisp variables is simply a
RMS> Scheme variable.

RMS> [...]

RMS> I think it is ugly--variables should remain variables.

Except the variable concepts in Emacs Lisp and Scheme are very
different.  Forcing the Emacs Lisp concept upon Scheme would be pretty
ugly and unclean.

Furthermore, I don't see why you think this is necessary.  I've seen a
lot of verbiage on this thread, but you haven't been very specific on
this issue.  (Maybe I've missed something; if so, I'd ask some kind
soul to rub my nose in that place.)

What exactly is the problem of marking parameter-like dynamic
variables specially and, in Scheme, using different constructs from
Emacs Lisp to bind, set, and access them?

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla