Re: Where is Emacs Lisp taught ?

[Garreau, Alexandre]

On 2018-10-26 at 11:41, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> What I’ve heard personally is about inconsistency in the language as a
>> library/interface, and slowness due to naive implementation of lisp,
>> absence of compiler, commitment to a truely maximally dynamic
>> architecture, and simplicity (you can’t extend the reader for instance,
>> contrarily to both cl and TeX).
>
> BTW, regarding reader macros, the reason why I opposed it was not
> "simplicity" but because I consider it to be a misfeature in the form
> it's done in CL and TeX,

I think I missed the mentioned thread… can you point me to it? or was it
the one on fancy quotes (then it’s not that much developed, was it?)?

> and even with alternative designs there's still the issue of the
> security impact to let `read` run arbitrary code.

any dynamically modifiable function, that is, afaik, any lisp non-core
function, can already be modified to do that, and if it’s done to
automatically execute unsafe and/or not trustworthy code, that’s an user
(or whoever changed it to do so) error, isn’t it?

so how this is more important for `read' than other I/O (`print',
`message', `minibuffer-message'…) or language (`eval', `apply',
`apply-partially'…) functions?