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: lexical-binding is turned on in more use cases Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 14:27:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <500f2ea5-699b-4a00-8944-5366073c42aa@default> References: <83pndo9zeb.fsf@gnu.org> <83o8t6bx2p.fsf@gnu.org> <83k13ubv3g.fsf@gnu.org> <83imjebsrh.fsf@gnu.org> <20200308193048.GB4832@ACM> 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="59935"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier , Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 09 22:34:49 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 1jBQ2y-000FUb-BA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 09 Mar 2020 22:34:48 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50058 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jBQ2x-0005Y6-Dv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 09 Mar 2020 17:34:47 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:43206) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jBQ18-0004mD-TF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Mar 2020 17:32:55 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jBQ17-0006SD-FC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Mar 2020 17:32:54 -0400 Original-Received: from aserp2120.oracle.com ([141.146.126.78]:39554) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jBQ16-0006Qz-3T; Mon, 09 Mar 2020 17:32:52 -0400 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (aserp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 029LR9Ye059290; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 21:32:49 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=eztx3PogC8z/5Q2s0fxJ037UsxjN+h2aUVY4+o3l3XE=; b=TXBKHIX19088iKtxxEP5IpDDLiqw2tHQKub1Z5VaGawPPbHpOWUBrK3rcbE6rfQervKt SpO8c5SWyYRSIrRPe60akpx9CM7nxPJdOJVvmBbSFCdaFiVQ26Nm7C/vOdbl6kuGYDhy fQNyek4IerDabID20rSLJqpAaD+OIq81XXkdRxMCtU2T9Xwwl4f7oG7jXhW9pYHmPAj4 zlarBEvYoAuR6T8alezGnTmXtOIZKKUSUaftJZ58GXaRzEOHf/lGcG7mb9yklxEMew94 qRz0xZCt2OWBGHX4NQnD5FZbAvWeJa1VfhYRwQcxCuGX/HoMXuzWXT2gmcN103xL/vyn Qw== Original-Received: from userp3020.oracle.com (userp3020.oracle.com [156.151.31.79]) by aserp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2ym3jqhra8-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 09 Mar 2020 21:32:49 +0000 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp3020.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3020.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 029LWAic085860; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 21:32:48 GMT Original-Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by userp3020.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2ymnb10yu2-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 09 Mar 2020 21:32:43 +0000 Original-Received: from abhmp0013.oracle.com (abhmp0013.oracle.com [141.146.116.19]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 029LRv5i002813; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 21:27:57 GMT In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.4966.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9555 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=693 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2003090131 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9555 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=756 impostorscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2003090131 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 141.146.126.78 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:245415 Archived-At: We seem to be drifting farther from Common Lisp's approach to cohabitation of lexical & dynamic. Or is that a mistaken impression? Would it make sense to move closer to, not farther from, CL's approach to handling special variables? I haven't developed using CL for a _long_ time, but I really don't recall jumping through hoops to accommodate both lexical & dynamic, either in files or interactively. (But granted, my interactive use of Elisp is greater. Emacs is a really interactive environment.) Does some of the complication maybe come from our trying to repurpose `defvar'? (No idea, just a wild guess.) Maybe you could run down clearly the reasons why Emacs Lisp should be different from Common Lisp wrt lexical & dynamic? Such a rundown might even be useful more generally, i.e., for all Emacs users. No obligation; just thinking it might help. (It would help me, at least.)