Re: Elisp development news

[Marius Vollmer]

Neil Jerram <address@hidden> writes:

> So, would anyone else object to me
> 
> - deprecating the unnecessary C Elisp support in the stable branch
> 
> - removing the same stuff in the CVS head?

Hmm, my little finger tells me to leave this stuff in for now.

What is your plan re data sharing between Elisp and Guile Scheme?
What about Jim's proposal?  Etc.  Until we have a firm grasp of these
things and are sure we are not acting out of ignorance of what has
been designed previously, we shouldn't start changing stuff.

The Elisp support functions are no maintainance problems, and I think
something like them needs to be in the core, after all.  Maybe we need
something completely different from what we have now, but I like to be
sure what we need before removing the existing stuff.

Or in other words, I would like to be convinced more thoroughly that
the new plan is as far developed as the old plan, and significantly
better.

(I will copy Jim's nil/t/#t/#f text into devel/.)