Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!unmvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!think!barmar
From: barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.emacs
Subject: Re: Keyboard macros Turing-equivalent (was Re: Copy From Above?)
Message-ID: <36474@think.UUCP>
Date: 17 Feb 89 00:41:15 GMT
References: <36460@think.UUCP> <9275@megaron.arizona.edu>
Sender: news@think.UUCP
Reply-To: barmar@kulla.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin)
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 17

In article <9275@megaron.arizona.edu> mike@arizona.edu (Mike Coffin) writes:
>Ah, but you can resort to lisp exactly once: after you decide exactly 
>what form the "decent conditional" will take.  Then you bind it
>to a key and you're on your way.

But that's one time too many.  The issue is whether keyboard macros
themselves are Turing-equivalent.  If you are allowed to define new
commands then you are stepping outside the keyboard macro world.  We
already know that Lisp is Turing-equivalent, so even one foray into
Lisp makes the question uninteresting.


Barry Margolin
Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar