From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs
Subject: bug#66756: 30.0.50;
 [PATCH] Improve discussion of 'let' in Elisp Introduction manual
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2023 13:41:04 +0200
Message-ID: <838r6nfkfj.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <a9812c1d-71e4-5f3f-83a4-a2923e649f3a@gmail.com>
 <a5120e2f-b008-1b74-1ad9-3fe7d861b13c@gmail.com>
 <E1qx8nq-0007DY-HV@fencepost.gnu.org>
 <3ade119d-0f0d-e60e-1bdc-9c7e02c1559c@gmail.com>
 <E1r4YeF-0001fe-Ex@fencepost.gnu.org>
 <381836df-c16f-b3e7-d0c4-473290e165de@gmail.com>
 <f44cca7f-13bb-a41a-c9ce-55f1b736c52b@gmail.com>
 <E1r5zuY-00041H-Bl@fencepost.gnu.org>
 <9239b6bd-b476-b6c1-aef9-245e439aee42@gmail.com> <83jzq7fx5o.fsf@gnu.org>
 <64d90b0b-e003-7bc3-5312-6c7ab4c4591f@gmail.com>
Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214";
	logging-data="19482"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io"
Cc: rms@gnu.org, 66756@debbugs.gnu.org
To: Jim Porter <jporterbugs@gmail.com>
Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Nov 24 12:42:23 2023
Return-path: <bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>
Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org
Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17])
	by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.92)
	(envelope-from <bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>)
	id 1r6UZi-0004tP-EY
	for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 12:42:22 +0100
Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
	(envelope-from <bug-gnu-emacs-bounces@gnu.org>)
	id 1r6UZM-0005aS-3a; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 06:42:00 -0500
Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10])
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
 id 1r6UZK-0005aF-VU
 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 06:41:59 -0500
Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:5::43])
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
 id 1r6UZJ-00015i-Mp
 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 06:41:57 -0500
Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1r6UZN-0007NA-QG
 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 06:42:01 -0500
X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org
Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
Resent-Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2023 11:42:01 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.66756.B66756.170082608728299@debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 66756
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch
Original-Received: via spool by 66756-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B66756.170082608728299
 (code B ref 66756); Fri, 24 Nov 2023 11:42:01 +0000
Original-Received: (at 66756) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Nov 2023 11:41:27 +0000
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35747 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>)
 id 1r6UYp-0007MN-AE
 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 06:41:27 -0500
Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:56216)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>) id 1r6UYn-0007M5-H2
 for 66756@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 06:41:26 -0500
Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e])
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>)
 id 1r6UYd-0000zh-Lf; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 06:41:15 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org;
 s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date:
 mime-version; bh=w5kjPvojXMgymUc892VK+K4+qsj5u5d9BE9Oj40R0cY=; b=CQ419JxcLv9w
 vSE56Fartc6MAoCnUkzRMzC96Hz/BJcU7qurjVQi6bD91Dldm897mM9+fB4zoH569XaovSH3ww9VR
 AH00ZCgDQQpmjVnz53qxP1ocm3bt5WrZfenVCGKrhXUAcRT/jWOtckOUhk73sbgCcS0aFO7bGkGl2
 oolaLQI/yA7LXeNjLg1k7lpgXLgkW92i/r3BxRKXycQjKawdbqzv79TPrVliCg9jvMsHwSALvtn3o
 qF14Ds76ELuZsrwx4Y7xw/TD6a4phw5O5ti/uTqZ3saXXcMxgVqa5C5m7IpKNc55S+gzpP5wtFxHE
 BiAIEqE+w3De62BFCupjgw==;
In-Reply-To: <64d90b0b-e003-7bc3-5312-6c7ab4c4591f@gmail.com> (message from
 Jim Porter on Fri, 24 Nov 2023 01:01:33 -0800)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs,
 the Swiss army knife of text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-gnu-emacs>,
 <mailto:bug-gnu-emacs-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnu-emacs>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bug-gnu-emacs-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnu-emacs>,
 <mailto:bug-gnu-emacs-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org
Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org
Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:274853
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.bugs/274853>

> Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2023 01:01:33 -0800
> Cc: rms@gnu.org, 66756@debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Jim Porter <jporterbugs@gmail.com>
> 
> >> +As we discussed before, under lexical binding, @code{let} defines a
> >> +@emph{place} in your code where the variables have their own local
> >> +meaning.  Under dynamic binding, the rules are different: instead, you
> >> +are defining a @emph{time} in your code when the variables have their
> >> +own local meaning.
> > 
> > If this wants to explain the difference between compile-time and
> > run-time binding, then perhaps it should say so, instead of talking
> > about the confusing "place where" vs "time when" the value changes?
> > And if compile-time is problematic (Emacs being an interpreter), then
> > we should find another description, one that doesn't use confusing
> > concept of "place".
> 
> I'm open to other wordings, but I wanted to describe what's going on 
> without getting into the details of the interpreter or how it evaluates 
> the code. The "place" is supposed to refer to the actual body of the 
> 'let' form. That's described in the first part I changed. However, the 
> "time" description could probably be expanded.
> 
> Maybe we could contrast "within the body of the let expression" vs 
> "during execution of the let expression"? That gets across the idea to 
> me that the former is about compile-time ("body" refers to the actual 
> Lisp form), while the latter is about run-time ("execution").

"During the execution" is probably a good idea, but "within the body
of the expression" Does not seem to contrast with that, since it also
holds for dynamic binding.

I think the explanation should focus on the code of getx, not on the
code in the 'let'-form's body.  The reason for what happens under
lexical binding is in getx.