This is the mail archive of the guile@cygnus.com mailing list for the guile project.
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com> writes: > > I don't see exactly what the problem is. I suppose there are big > > problems if you contemplate trying to map elisp fcns to their > > corresponding scheme functions, but are there big problems just > > implementing an elisp interpreter in scheme? > > Certainly, I can implement Emacs Lisp in Scheme. Or I can implement Elisp > in C and include it as a module in Guile. Or whatever. In that > sense, there's no problem reconciling Guile with any language you can > imagine. > > The real issues come up when you want smooth communication between the > languages. The type space of Emacs Lisp and Scheme are so > tantalizingly similar (as you noted) that it's horribly tempting to > try to make them share data in the obvious way, and call each others' > functions in an obvious way. And since Emacs Lisp is one of the big > intended applications of Guile, it makes sense to go to a bit of > effort to succumb to that temptation. Why wouldn't this take the form of a foreign function interface? -- Harvey J. Stein BFM Financial Research hjstein@bfr.co.il