Hello,

> I have noticed several threads in the archives where people ask about
> integrating emacs into Squeak. The standard answer seems to be: why
> would you want to do that when the built-in editor is so nice?

  Is it really seems the standard answer? :-) I actually
think the integration has a good point.  I
imagine that it would be nice if I don't have to move my
hands from the home position of keyboard, yet I still have
the full control of all Browsers, Inspectors, Workspaces,
etc.  (mouse-less Squeak?)

#   When Nemacs 3.3.2 (based on GNU Emacs 18.55) was the
# latest, I read all of the 'info' and tried to do the
# examples in it.  It was real "wower" for me.
  
> As a pre-newbie thinking about starting up in squeak, here's one reason:
> I'm looking for a platform where I can develop generic info management
> tools. The ability to plug in an editor with the power of emacs and the
> extensive package library of emacs is almost a sine qua non... So I'm
> wondering... how possible would this be to do? Does it even make sense
> to think about doing it?

  I'm sorry but I don't understand what you want to do
well...  If I understand correctly, you could implement it
in Emacs-lisp:-)

  Anyway, I think there are several possibilities to 
integrate Squeak and Emacs.

  0.  Implement some basic key combination in
      ParagraphEditor.   ...

  1.  Inferior-Squeak mode.  (This doesn't mean that Squeak
      is inferior:-)  By Using OSProcess, use stdin/stdout
      as a log of a Workspace.  This one itself doesn't
      make much sense.

  2.  text fragment by text fragment editing in Emacs.  Run
      gnuserv in Emacs and Squeak "asks" the Emacs to edit a
      certain fragment of text.  If the method is lengthy,
      or you want to perform some decent operation such as
      query-replace-regexp or dabbrev-expand, having this
      *option* is a plus.  One downside is you cannot
      evaluate code fragment while you're writing the code,
      but 1. would help it.

The above three should be not so difficult to do.

  3.  Write a Lisp interpreter in Squeak.  This would be a
      smooth approach, although there would be lots of labor
      if you want to run pretty large part of emacs-lisp
      libraries.

  4.  Reimplement everything in Squeak.  more labor will be
      needed than 3. but more cleaner implementation.  (I
      wish someone would do this:-)

  -- Yoshiki