[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: cc-langs.el
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
Re: cc-langs.el |
Date: |
30 Aug 2003 08:17:34 +0900 |
Kevin Rodgers <address@hidden> writes:
> The Common Lisp functions have a well-specified interface, and adding
> new functions (vs. modifying existing functions) should not affect
> Emacs' behavior. What's to think about?
_Emacs lisp is not common lisp_.
That means that however worthy these functions are (and I know they are
-- remember, I'm a common-lisp _fan_*), you can't just plop them into
elisp wholesale, you've got at least look at them, and how they fit into
elisp, and make decisions; interfaces and functions that are right for
common-lisp are not necessarily right for elisp. For a lot of
functions, that takes a fair amount of time.
I realize that for sanity's sake, it would be best to use the same (or
at least very similar) interfaces for elisp functions as their
common-lisp counterparts, but none-the-less, you can't just plop.
-Miles
* Personally I'd love it if emacs used common-lisp instead of elisp.
But it doesn't.
--
We are all lying in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
-Oscar Wilde
- Re: cc-langs.el, Martin Stjernholm, 2003/08/22
- Re: cc-langs.el, Miles Bader, 2003/08/22
- Re: cc-langs.el, Richard Stallman, 2003/08/23
- Re: cc-langs.el, Martin Stjernholm, 2003/08/23
- Re: cc-langs.el, Richard Stallman, 2003/08/24
- Re: cc-langs.el, Martin Stjernholm, 2003/08/26
- Message not available
- Re: cc-langs.el, Martin Stjernholm, 2003/08/28
- Re: cc-langs.el, Richard Stallman, 2003/08/29
- Re: cc-langs.el, Kevin Rodgers, 2003/08/29
- Re: cc-langs.el,
Miles Bader <=
- Re: cc-langs.el, Martin Stjernholm, 2003/08/30
- Re: cc-langs.el, Miles Bader, 2003/08/30
- Re: cc-langs.el, Richard Stallman, 2003/08/31