From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keisuke Nishida To: Kalle Olavi Niemitalo Cc: guile-emacs@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: Emacs Scheme interface Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 12:23:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <87ln33uu6l.fsf@PC486.Niemitalo.LAN> X-SW-Source: 2000-q1/msg00067.html Kalle Olavi Niemitalo writes: > Many Emacs Lisp special forms like `save-excursion' take a list > of expressions to evaluate. In Scheme, it seems more common to > instead take a thunk to call: `dynamic-wind' and > `with-input-from-file' work this way. > > Should the Scheme versions of `save-excursion' and others be > changed to take a thunk parameter? (Then they wouldn't even have > to be macros.) I think everything in Scheme should be organized in the way of Scheme, including the naming style. In that sense, the new save-excursion should take a thunk parameter. > The macros are more convenient, though. Perhaps we should > provide both a procedure `call-saving-excursion' and a macro > `save-excursion'. Maybe... but having two different expressions may be confusing. Does Guile have any macro like `save-excursion'? If so, providing it as a macro would be OK. If not, only call-saving-excursion might be enough. I prefer consistency to convenience. One may define one's own convenient syntax in Scheme. (Good defaults are important, though...) Maybe the new (emacs macro) should provide those convenient macros?