Re: [zile-devel] Woot, we may soon be obsolete!

[Reuben Thomas]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Stephan Titard wrote:

> > The current Lisp implementation in Zile is actually a hacked-down small
> > lisp interpreter (lithp 0.6).
> Ah. Thanks. I could  not find any pointer to that in the docs...

No, I was trying not to advertise it. I did think originally that a 
proper Lisp was a good idea, but then changed my mind and eviscerated 
it. I kept just enough so that the .zile file could have Lisp-ish 
syntax.

One thought: no need to use tinyscheme, as "small" in the context of a 
"big" zile includes "using stuff that's already on the system", so it 
could use rep (librep: "It was originally written to be 
mostly-compatible with Emacs Lisp, but has subsequently diverged 
markedly.") or guile. guile is politically a better bet as only sawfish 
depends on librep, whereas lots of things use guile, and if rep has now 
"diverged markedly" from elisp, it may not make sense to use it for 
similarity value (though at least it IS Lisp rather than Scheme).

> I thought actually it was __POSIX__ Code; obviously there are some 
> poorly-conforming curses as it does not compile on HP-UX. As I 
> commented, it is probable that having ncurses as a prerequisite would 
> solve the problem. I will definitely send patches if I make it work.

OK. Certainly at the moment I develop against ncurses, and I don't have 
a non-extended implementation to try. ncurses itself doesn't provide 
compatibility headers, I think, as it's basically a superset of curses, 
so they'd only be useful for developers trying to write code that works 
on POSIX-only curses.

--
http://rrt.sc3d.org/ | free, a.  already paid for (Peyton Jones)