info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Extension languages
2 views
Skip to first unread message
c70:editor-people
Aug 21, 1982, 12:53:14 AM8/21/82
to
>From WUTS@USC-ECLC Thu Aug 19 00:44:47 1982
I have been using Emacs for a while now and really like its extensibility.
I have also written and read my share of Teco code, but still do not feel
comfortable with it. I have heard of Lisp based Emacs, but I'm not sure
that Lisp is much less obscure that Teco. The point of this all is that I
may be writing an editor for an IBM 4341 and am considering making the
extension language something Pascal-like. I thinking about making the top
level a Pascal interpreter with the obvious extensions to make editing
possible. I.e. add real string types and/or buffer types, etc. Does
something like this exist somewhere? Are there any Emacs-like editors with
a reasonable extension language? Am I in weeds or does this sound like
a reasonable idea?
Maurice Wuts
I have been using Emacs for a while now and really like its extensibility.
I have also written and read my share of Teco code, but still do not feel
comfortable with it. I have heard of Lisp based Emacs, but I'm not sure
that Lisp is much less obscure that Teco. The point of this all is that I
may be writing an editor for an IBM 4341 and am considering making the
extension language something Pascal-like. I thinking about making the top
level a Pascal interpreter with the obvious extensions to make editing
possible. I.e. add real string types and/or buffer types, etc. Does
something like this exist somewhere? Are there any Emacs-like editors with
a reasonable extension language? Am I in weeds or does this sound like
a reasonable idea?
Maurice Wuts
[Editor's note: presumably, the Pascal-like dialect would also include
dynamic binding of procedures to procedure names/incocations. JQJ]
c70:editor-people
Aug 21, 1982, 11:47:13 PM8/21/82
to
>From Ellis.Cohen@CMU-10A Sat Aug 21 01:41:42 1982
The advantage of Pascal or any full programming language over MLisp
would at first glance appear to be the availability of data types.
However, the text in the buffer can be structured to simulate any sort
of data structure you might desire. I am not at all convinced that
general data types would be useful. In fact, my guess is that they will
make editor procedures less, rather than more, understandable. In
addition, there are characteristics of the way many data types that we
would like to add are interfaced with the implementation which make user
extension difficult -- witness the addition of "marker" data types to
MLisp.
The advantage of Pascal or any full programming language over MLisp
would at first glance appear to be the availability of data types.
However, the text in the buffer can be structured to simulate any sort
of data structure you might desire. I am not at all convinced that
general data types would be useful. In fact, my guess is that they will
make editor procedures less, rather than more, understandable. In
addition, there are characteristics of the way many data types that we
would like to add are interfaced with the implementation which make user
extension difficult -- witness the addition of "marker" data types to
MLisp.
0 new messages