[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: guile and elisp
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: guile and elisp |
Date: |
Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:42:27 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) |
Hello Guilemacsers! :-)
Not sure about the fine technical points, but I think the general
philosophy should consider these points:
- There’s currently no Scheme code that interacts with Elisp. Thus,
code that will be written specifically to interact with Elisp code
can adjust to do the right thing, e.g., make explicit calls to
‘canonicalize-boolean’, etc., as Mark suggested.
- Scheme’s #f/() are more expressive that elisp’s nil. They can be
easily mapped to nil, whereas it seems hard to automatically choose
whether to map nil to #f or to (). This also supports the idea of
requiring Scheme code to make explicit conversions.
- Elisp should be considered “legacy”. Whenever something can’t be
made transparent, I’d consider Scheme first-class and Elisp
second-class.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
- guile and elisp, Andy Wingo, 2010/03/25
- Re: guile and elisp,
Ludovic Courtès <=