[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you write a python
wrapper for elisp that will feel like python?
Something like callElispFunctionByName(name-of-elisp-function) ?
well, no. It's a start, but it really means that you have to now and
work with elisp to work with the editor component. I was thinking more
along the lines of how you wrap C++ or ObjC, so that:
(name-of-elisp-function, parameter1, parameter2)
becomes:
name-of-elisp-function(parameter1, parameter2)
(if I remember lisp syntax at all!
A simple example like that looks easy, but I suspect it'll get a lot
harder when you try to do something real.
Really? I don't know enough about Emacs to say for sure, but does the
viper (vim) plugin break all other Emacs extensions? That's hard to
believe.
I don't know, I've never used it. What I'm referring to is that the
extensions have their own key bindings, and so you may have to re-bind
all those too. Though I think the convention is Ctrl-C before the
extension commands, so, though you'd want Ctrl-C for "copy", you may be
able to just re-bind that. I have no idea how viper works.
Maybe -- if there was total access -- but is this really easier than
building something on STC and other existing python modules?
My experience is that trying to duplicate Emacs's functionality
requires more than a year of work, regardless of what tools one starts
with. In particular, Emacs has hundreds of commands to support all
the items on Robin's list. True, most commands are fairly easy to do,
but the job remains daunting.
Quite true. However, there is always the trade-off between getting
something functional fast, and getting it right. Unless the code you're
wrapping was really designed to be a library or component (and maybe
emacs was), then you'll always be fighting it (or your users will),
because it will never fit in.
> Furthermore, implementing the minibuffer itself takes a lot of work.
Only because your framework didn't support that idea from the beginning
-- I'm guessing you didn't start with a many-to-many relationship
between buffers and views. But even if I'm right, it doesn't change your
point -- emacs has a lot that's done right, and is incredibly
feature-full, well tested, and debugged. It's a LOT of work to get
anywhere near that stage.
If you can embed emacs in a python IDE and make it not feel like emacs
-- I'll be glad to use it!
-Chris
--
Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer
Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax
Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
