[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language |
Date: |
Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:57:00 +0300 |
> From: John Wiegley <address@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 13:11:30 -0700
>
> > On second thought, I don't think I understand the idea at all. What does it
> > mean "a Lispy language, easy to learn"? Is it a Lisp dialect, or is it C
> > with a set of Lisp-like macros preprocessed into C? What exactly are the C
> > aspects that we are trying to save the programmer from? And which part(s) of
> > the core do we expect to be able to rewrite in this "Lispy" language?
>
> Picture what we currently write in C, but a Lisp syntax, and all the macros we
> currently use removed. So, the essence of our C, written like it was Lisp.
I did picture that. That's why I'm asking.
Can we please see a couple of examples, as a kind of concept
demonstration, just to feel the taste of this? For example, how would
you write make_frame in this language? (This would be an example of
creating a Lisp object which is backed up by a large C struct that has
members not visible from Lisp.) Will we have some kind of 'defstruct'
in this "subset"? How will we distinguish Lisp objects from C
objects?
Also, please try to answer the other questions I asked above. I think
they are important for us to understand what exactly is being
proposed and what do we try to accomplish.
> If that Lisp can get close enough to Emacs Lisp, so that knowing one means
> knowing the other, we've just made it easier for anyone to write what we now
> have to write in C.
Sorry, I came to the conclusion that I don't really understand what
this means in practice. So I'm asking for examples.
If this means we will have C code written in Lisp syntax, then are you
saying the syntax of C is the main difficulty for understanding the C
core code? E.g., let's imagine that we rewrote the display engine
this "Lispy" language -- do we really believe it will be easier to
understand and maintain?
Or what about regex.c -- are we going to "lispify" that?
> I can imagine that complex things, like type declarations, would be done with
> anti-quoted blocks, or by direct support for inclusion of header files.
So we will have a mixture of C and Lisp, or C blocks within Lisp code?
How will that help readability and maintainability?
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, (continued)
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Daniel Colascione, 2015/10/12
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Óscar Fuentes, 2015/10/15
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, John Wiegley, 2015/10/12
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Óscar Fuentes, 2015/10/12
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, John Wiegley, 2015/10/12
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/10/12
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/10/12
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, John Wiegley, 2015/10/12
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Marcin Borkowski, 2015/10/12
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Óscar Fuentes, 2015/10/12
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, John Wiegley, 2015/10/13
- RE: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Drew Adams, 2015/10/15
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, John Wiegley, 2015/10/15
- RE: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Drew Adams, 2015/10/12
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, John Wiegley, 2015/10/13
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, immerrr again, 2015/10/13
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/10/13
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Óscar Fuentes, 2015/10/12
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, David Kastrup, 2015/10/13
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/10/15