Larry Clapp wrote: > On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 11:53:02AM -0500, Larry Clapp wrote: > >>On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 07:40:07AM -0800, Peter Seibel wrote: >> >>>Larrry, in order to exercise the budding gardener project process, >>>can you create a page on the ALU Wiki along the lines of >>> >>> <http://wiki.alu.org/Fixing_ASDF-INSTALLable_packages> >>> >>>describing the SLIME-Vim project, with yourself as Champion. The >>>point of doing that is to get a clear description of the work put >>>down somewhere so other gardeners can see what needs to be done and >>>where they might be able to help out. >> >>http://wiki.alu.org:80/Perl_interface_to_SLIME >> >>Kind of bare bones at the moment. > > > On http://wiki.alu.org:80/Perl_interface_to_SLIME?version=3, Peter > asked: > > >>ISTR this was discussed on the mailing list, but I don't recall the >>resolution. Is there some reason it'd be hard to embedd CLISP or >>ECL into Vim as another scripting language? > > > We didn't discuss it here, no. > > >>Then you could write the Vim extension in Common Lisp rather than >>Perl. Which seems good for encouraging the use of Lisp and also >>presumably would allow you to use more of the existing SWANK code. > > > I looked into this a few months ago and could find no documentation on > how to write a Vim interface to another language. I did not feel like > figuring it out from the Perl/Python/etc examples already done, so I > dropped it, and apparently marked it internally as "too hard". :) > > Knowing admittedly little about the internals of clisp or ECL, I think > clisp would probably be the better choice. (I think) it's smaller, > and doesn't require the GNU C Compiler for compilation. Hmmm, on the > other hand, ECL has a bytecode compiler, too, so if the user happened > to have GCC, ECL could use it; if not, not. > > I guess I figured: I know Perl. I know Perl could talk to Swank. I > know Vim can talk to Perl. If I use Perl, I could start immediately, > and as a side product, produce a stand-alone Perl module to talk to > Swank. > > On the other hand, I don't know anything about integrating Vim with > another language, or integrating clisp or ECL with another product. > Once I did, I'd *still* have to translate slime.el to Vim's editor > primitives. Once I did *that*, Vim could talk to Swank ... but nobody > else could. > > The bang-for-the-buck seems pretty low, and the learning curve (for > me) seems pretty high. >
Actually, this post got me wondering: instead of doing something VIM specific at the VIM end, maybe it would be possible to interface slime to a small, embeddable scheme like tinyscheme which was then embedded in the editor. It wouldn't make the editor side any easier, but it might reduce the amount of work per-editor, and it might make talking to swank easier. TinyScheme: http://tinyscheme.sourceforge.net/home.html > On the third hand, if I did it, then we'd have a popular, world class > editor scriptable in Common Lisp, with at least some of the elisp > ("ELisp"? "eLisp"?) primitives ported over already. Not a terrible > thing. :) > > I dunno. I like the idea of adding clisp/ECL to Vim, but not right > now. I'm talking about planting a nice apple tree and you're telling > me "well that's nice, but you have enough space to do a whole orchard; > why don't you do that?" :) > > Anybody else that wants to step out into the field and start planting > is welcome to it, of course. I won't stop you, and I'll cheer when > you're finished! > > -- Larry > > _______________________________________________ > Gardeners mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners > _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
