From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Lexical byte-compilation warnings cleanup Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:31:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5cd4c948-8187-4901-8c17-1db4c7288fe7@default> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1377034639 6257 80.91.229.3 (20 Aug 2013 21:37:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:37:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Daniel Hackney , Emacs development discussions To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 20 23:37:20 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VBtc7-0002py-Ke for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 23:37:19 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50128 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VBtc7-00083l-8R for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 17:37:19 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35194) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VBtbv-00083Z-ME for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 17:37:16 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VBtW4-0007xL-Bv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 17:31:20 -0400 Original-Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:33600) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VBtW4-0007x6-2Z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 17:31:04 -0400 Original-Received: from ucsinet21.oracle.com (ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id r7KLV2fq029764 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:31:02 GMT Original-Received: from aserz7021.oracle.com (aserz7021.oracle.com [141.146.126.230]) by ucsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r7KLV02D026736 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:31:01 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt101.oracle.com (abhmt101.oracle.com [141.146.116.53]) by aserz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r7KLV0B5021219; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:31:00 GMT In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8 (707110) [OL 12.0.6680.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-Received-From: 156.151.31.81 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:162934 Archived-At: > > Excuse me for not following the thread and perhaps not understanding wh= at > > you say here. Are you saying that if `lexical-binding' is non-nil then > > a function parameter whose name is the same as a dynamically scoped > > variable is "not allowed" or does not refer to that variable? >=20 > Indeed, it does not refer to the dynamically bound variable. Why is that? Will this be fixed, or is this the intended design? > > That would be counter to how Common Lisp works, and I thought (and I ho= pe) > > that our aim was (is) to use the way Common Lisp marries lexical and > > dynamic binding as our model. >=20 > Elisp is not Common-Lisp. That's obvious. No one will argue the contrary. But is there a reason not to follow the CL design in general wrt the cohabitation of lexical and dynamic binding? Even if things are currently a work in progress, is that the direction you intend to head, or are you aiming elsewhere? Is there a description somewhere of where the design is headed in this regard? Is there a spec or a proposal? What are the intentions? There was a lot of discussion behind the CL design. What are the proposals here and their supporting arguments?