From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#68075: 30.0.50; New special form `handler-bind` Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2024 19:35:16 +0200 Message-ID: <83h6jx0xez.fsf@gnu.org> References: <835y0i92kb.fsf@gnu.org> <83le9c3z6k.fsf@gnu.org> <83wmsu17x6.fsf@gnu.org> <83le9911id.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="4650"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 68075@debbugs.gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 01 18:36:17 2024 Return-path: 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 ) id 1rKMD3-000139-Bt for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 01 Jan 2024 18:36:17 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rKMCo-0006pi-Tt; Mon, 01 Jan 2024 12:36:02 -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 ) id 1rKMCn-0006oX-57 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jan 2024 12:36:01 -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 ) id 1rKMCm-0003i5-Si for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jan 2024 12:36:00 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rKMCo-0001lG-2c for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jan 2024 12:36:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2024 17:36:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 68075 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 68075-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B68075.17041305356724 (code B ref 68075); Mon, 01 Jan 2024 17:36:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 68075) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Jan 2024 17:35:35 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48692 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rKMCM-0001kN-Ub for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jan 2024 12:35:35 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51346) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rKMCK-0001k4-NC for 68075@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jan 2024 12:35:33 -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 ) id 1rKMCB-0003Tn-0M; Mon, 01 Jan 2024 12:35:23 -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=3g5o5G+PcmVlt7VHHETkyzZDGxCSAx8rIER6dF2QEoQ=; b=UHsASmMdOJbf k0Erhr7VnY28/+RP9+VhHdxrT4QdsSTprwWTUf7G7MWpxiFgMCklCWu1RH2/tVs3HlD6K8a+tECQl 5/fjQY9Qr7UEXPNC+54WVIXbE9Mhzinl1XcbRdajPXiejO5RFchyGiYeJa9RsagaRsc79rUUd+AB3 zTetAq1+s29bEbpKZQfKLozDuWW8KUDiMWLYcM92haBtZFEoErY5iJWfL6BN3UqvRHwHdurkXG4fS bUm5tyOjCaqMQEfdKIEJu4AiSIM6AhSXiZ4e7V5UPRbes1SYT7RR34MOqYkcL3M6Z4iJHmggHFQV7 OyukORNYlrNf4+/2MiAFVA==; In-Reply-To: (message from Stefan Monnier on Mon, 01 Jan 2024 11:55:43 -0500) 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" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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:277185 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: 68075@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2024 11:55:43 -0500 > > >> So, IIUC, reading that text makes you feel unsure, but you don't really > >> know what you're unsure of? > > > > Oh, but I do: the two references to "dynamic", including one to > > "dynamic binding" seem to indicate quite unequivocally that "dynamic > > binding" vs "lexical binding" could be involved. > > Yes, it is involved: statically scoped vars are not affected, while > dynamically scoped vars are affected, which is why the text says > "dynamic". Ah, so lexical binding _is_ relevant to this, in the sense that lexically-bound variables are _not_ affected! Then please say that, maybe in parentheses or as a footnote. And please don't use "statically scoped", because we don't use this terminology anywhere in the ELisp manual. We always say "lexical scoping". > Sadly, I still fail to grasp what kind of change to the wording could > address the problem because I still don't really understand the problem. > Maybe you could try to rewrite that bit in a way that you find more > clear (or if there's still some part of the behavior over which you have > doubts, then I'd be happily to try and explain it further). I hope now it is more clear.