From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Can't M-x compile-defun `edebug' because dynamic variables are falsely taken as lexical. Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 12:43:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <256f068f-5a0a-4127-aa7c-633eae24f15f@default> References: <20170103141444.GA4649@acm.fritz.box> <20170103213228.GB2085@acm.fritz.box> <20170104133948.GA7373@acm.fritz.box> <20170104200458.GA2052@acm.fritz.box> <29855ded-8607-4132-a80f-3204c06d74d9@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="50554"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Alan Mackenzie , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 13 21:44:15 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1j2LLL-000D3n-Av for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 21:44:15 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58946 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j2LLK-0002zd-C6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 15:44:14 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37158) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j2LKk-0002WW-66 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 15:43:39 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j2LKi-0001ZM-Si for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 15:43:37 -0500 Original-Received: from userp2130.oracle.com ([156.151.31.86]:38992) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j2LKi-0001TO-KB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 15:43:36 -0500 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp2130.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2130.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 01DKgtcm136445; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 20:43:34 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=A/osiyV4U8TKH/iYFVbh8zMeLZbPjmbypWHpRKHAxbs=; b=uyGl2yp8+oyaRcIAz9BIywT3gsY12a8vhRMWQX7bgcxn6XjA9E/ScaZbqNxnmofFYMiB 02ciQEOXT+Vx/uCHFl+0R/YOTC0SAAWbQocTY7kFAaLC2MKyZzWlpfdn06B96srXtyAt 2rKGx0UhlZai0BHuosUC/1owegxu0L0aHh6rYYSTC5QjVLpfV6jq+MESXKAIOr6qsR2N ZNOMpdhhZkqw+KxlmNmDtQ9h4AcAAW5lK6Ta5cnDxB9jsry0FrrEhefGQ8HmwbXE0Z0T Z7Ee564ESxiKhtsKbKccpQR4WklbIEBNhuZQ9R1QBU3LX6gzwuGCY5+FMmre1jiJZ+Hu Cg== Original-Received: from aserp3030.oracle.com (aserp3030.oracle.com [141.146.126.71]) by userp2130.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2y2k88n4wr-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 13 Feb 2020 20:43:34 +0000 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (aserp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 01DKfrW7026935; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 20:43:33 GMT Original-Received: from userv0122.oracle.com (userv0122.oracle.com [156.151.31.75]) by aserp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2y4k80jtwn-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 13 Feb 2020 20:43:33 +0000 Original-Received: from abhmp0003.oracle.com (abhmp0003.oracle.com [141.146.116.9]) by userv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 01DKhUxt015061; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 20:43:30 GMT In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.4954.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9530 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxlogscore=992 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002130146 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9530 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 clxscore=1015 spamscore=0 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002130146 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 156.151.31.86 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:244924 Archived-At: > > Can we please fix the doc, to make things clear? >=20 > I added: >=20 > Note that since this is a function, it can only return > non-@code{nil} for variables which are permanently special, but not > for those that are only special in the current lexical scope. Thanks very much for working on this. But I'm afraid I don't know what a permanent versus temporary special variable is. And I haven't found anything in the doc that has helped me with that. I looked in Elisp nodes `Using Lexical Binding', where `special-variable-p' is documented, and `Defining Variables', where `defvar' is doc'd. "special" variable seems to be defined as a term in each of those nodes, BTW. (I also looked in node `Variable Scoping'.) Node `Defining Variables' seems to say that using `defvar' is enough to make a variable "always" dynamic: The variable is marked as "special", meaning that it should always be dynamically bound ^^^^^^ (*note Variable Scoping::). Is "always" something different from "permanent"? Sorry, but I really don't understand what is meant by what you wrote. I also don't understand the implication, "since this is a function". ^^^^^ But maybe that's because I don't understand "permanently special" and "only special in the current lexical scope". AFAIK, in Common Lisp a variable is either special or it's not. If it is then its binding by `let' is dynamic, and if it's not then its let-binding is lexical. (No?)