Emacs Common Lisp [LWN.net]

From:		Lars Brinkhoff <lars-AT-nocrew.org>
To:		Lisp News for LWN <lwn-AT-lwn.net>
Subject:		New Common Lisp implementation
Date:		28 Apr 2004 14:11:10 +0200

Emacs Common Lisp is a new implementation of Common Lisp, written in
Emacs Lisp.  It's not like Emacs' "CL" package as it does not intend
to extend Emacs Lisp with Common Lisp functionality; however, Common
Lisp functions compile to standard byte code functions, so Emacs Lisp
functions can call Common Lisp functions and vice versa.

At this stage many bugs remain, but the implementation is good enough
to load and run most of the GCL ANSI tests.

More information will be found here:
http://www.lisp.se/emacs-cl/

-- 
Lars Brinkhoff,         Services for Unix, Linux, GCC, HTTP
Brinkhoff Consulting    http://www.brinkhoff.se/

(Log in to post comments)

Emacs Common Lisp

Posted Apr 29, 2004 10:12 UTC (Thu) by mmarkov (guest, #4978) [Link]

I vaguely remember a discussion in news:comp.emacs.xemacs
two years (or so) ago about merging emacs with xemacs and
re-writing it in Common Lisp. It seems that is not going
to happen.

Emacs Common Lisp

Posted Apr 30, 2004 0:29 UTC (Fri) by donio (subscriber, #94) [Link]

It might happen still. There seems to be a bit of a Common Lisp renaissance going on lately.

Let's see what's out there:

There is Portable Hemlock:

http://www.stud.uni-karlsruhe.de/~unk6/hemlock/

And there is this:

http://armedbear-j.sourceforge.net/

"J is a text editor written entirely in Java"

...but they use Common Lisp as the extension language. The project includes a failry complete Common Lisp implementation, written in Java. Weirdos :)

But neither of these is what we (or at least I) really want, which is a Common Lisp implementation of Emacs that can run existing elisp programs with little or no porting required.

CL-Emacs

Posted Apr 30, 2004 8:49 UTC (Fri) by larsbrinkhoff (guest, #4638) [Link]

There are two Emacs Lisp-to-Common Lisp translators: one in CLOCC, and
one for Portable Hemlock. Neither are complete, but the latter one would
seem to be closer to a Common Lisp implementation of Emacs capable of
running Emacs Lisp programs.