"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There are two lisp implementations on the GNU project: > > Three, you forgot about GNU Common Lisp.
There is also GNU CLISP, and GNU/MIT Scheme. > > So the work consist on write wrapper libraries in C for cover the >hurd API, including trivfs, netfs, and so. > > I'd rather see wrappers for somethings that are in the Hurd specific > parts of glibc. I can't imagin why someone would want to write a > translator in scheme for example, but being able to interact with > translators is far more plausible (setting translators on a node, > removing, getting information about them, etc). > I think that being able to write translators using scripting languages (or scripting/compiled languages like lisp) would be very useful. People may want to write fortune-like translators, which could be done more quiclky than in C. Another example, a mailbox->maildir (or opposite) translator could be easily prototyped using a scripting language. Or basically, if you has to fed a program with a script, and the program does not read from pipe but only from file (like modern GUI applications), you may want to write a translator for that (providing that you don't want to use mkfifo, like in the fortune translator). > In other words, I think that writting translators in scheme can wait. > But if you wish to persue that, then that is your choice. :-) > Surely it isn't the most important thing :). Just for people here's information, I remember that someone wrote a perl library which enabled to write translators in Perl. Thanks, Matthieu _______________________________________________ gnu-system-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-system-discuss
