Do you have any idea how much stuff we've written in Elisp?
It's. Not. Worth. It.
You people don't even listen when we try to explain that lexical scope is unnecessary and potentially even a bad idea.
Threads? Come on. :\
It's. Not. Worth. It.
You people don't even listen when we try to explain that lexical scope is unnecessary and potentially even a bad idea.
Threads? Come on. :\
I'm not "you people", I'm not affiliated with Guile in any way. However, you are wrecking your brains over something without being fully informed. It is not and never has been intended to _rewrite_ anywthing written in Elisp. Thats why Elisp itself has been to a large part already rewritten in Guile, and it is planned to gut emacs and replace the current C-Elisp engine with the new Guile-Elisp engine. Whether this will or will not work out as intended is a completely different story. But the fact remains that Elisp, in the grand scheme of things, is an isolated island, and as such does not fit into the overall design goals of GNU stated over 20 yrs ago, so there are people working on this. Even Google sponsored two GSoC projects for two years to rewrite Elisp in Scheme.
See:
* http://wingolog.org/archives/2009/01/07/a-brief-history-of-g...
* http://wingolog.org/archives/2010/04/02/recent-developments-...
* http://wingolog.org/archives/2011/08/30/the-gnu-extension-la...
http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs-paper.html#SEC17
The docs and the man himself say it best.