I sent an email about that, but it was only an idea. I thought it would be nice if we could work with the Clisp people. However, I can see some barriers to actually doing that, and I don't intend to work on it any time soon.
Noah On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Nala Ginrut <nalagin...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 16:51 +0100, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: > > Hi, > > > In terms of strategy, I think Guile’s focus should remain primarily > > on > > > Scheme variants, and ELisp. Other language front-ends are of course > > > welcome, but we must keep an eye on what the demand is. > > > > What about common lisp is scheme a lisp or is CL a scheme :-) > > > > IIRC， someone raised the topic that emerge Clisp into Guile in 2011, > but what's the status now? > > > Anyway to support CL I would think that we need to support placing > > properties > > on symbols, e,g. currently a symbol slot is a variable, but to > > effectively support CL I would go for > > /Stefan > > > > > > > > Den 21 nov 2012 14:26 skrev "Ludovic Courtès" <l...@gnu.org>: > > Hi! > > > > nalaginrut <nalagin...@gmail.com> skribis: > > > > > I switch to lua branch then compiled it and try, seems some > > bugs there, > > > it can't run successfully: > > > -------------------cut-------------------- > > > scheme@(guile-user)> ,L lua > > > Happy hacking with Lua! To switch back, type `,L scheme'. > > > lua@(guile-user)> x=1 > > > > Maybe you need a semicolon here? > > > > > And I checked the code, it doen't use Guile inner LALR > > parser. > > > Anybody point me out what is the suggested parser > > implementation? > > > > (system base lalr). > > > > > And is there anyone ever evaluated the efficiency about the > > non-scheme > > > language implemented within Guile? > > > > I don’t think so. Only the Scheme and Emacs Lisp front-end > > are > > reasonably mature, anyway. > > > > > Anyway, this wouldn't be a big problem, since Guile could be > > the > > > future dynamic language compiler collection, it could be > > optimized > > > later. > > > > FWIW, I don’t quite buy the “dynamic language compiler > > collection”. > > Others tried this before (Parrot), with some success in terms > > of > > supported languages, but not much beyond that. > > > > In terms of strategy, I think Guile’s focus should remain > > primarily on > > Scheme variants, and ELisp. Other language front-ends are of > > course > > welcome, but we must keep an eye on what the demand is. > > > > Thanks, > > Ludo’. > > > > > >
