From xemacs-m  Fri Jan 10 03:18:14 1997
Received: from red.parallax.co.uk (root@red.parallax.co.uk [194.159.4.1])
          by xemacs.cs.uiuc.edu (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP
	  id DAA23103 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 03:18:10 -0600 (CST)
Received: from dumbo.parallax.co.uk (dumbo.parallax.co.uk [172.16.1.12]) by red.parallax.co.uk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA03611 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:18:04 GMT
Received: from wrath.parallax.co.uk (wrath.parallax.co.uk [192.168.1.2]) by dumbo.parallax.co.uk (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id JAA26566 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:20:43 GMT
Received: by wrath.parallax.co.uk (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id JAA24915; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:26:33 GMT
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:26:33 GMT
From: andyp@parallax.co.uk (Andy Piper)
Message-Id: <199701100926.JAA24915@wrath.parallax.co.uk>
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: lexically scroped lisp
X-Sun-Charset: ISO-8859-1


> > If we're doing that, we should again give serious thought to
> > replacing the Lisp engine entirely by something more modern.  Scheme
> > is definitely the right direction.  I have serious doubts that Guile
> > is.

Has anyone considered that Guile could be the last straw in trying to 
maintain compatibility between The-Editor-Formerly-Known-as-FSGnuEmacs
and XEmacs? If Emacs starts to support Guile then XEmacs will have to 
in order to maintain compatibility, but by the sounds of it is not
necessarily something we want to do.

my 0.02

andy

