From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: lexbind Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 23:07:02 +0100 Message-ID: <857igj1myh.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1204582146 23143 80.91.229.12 (3 Mar 2008 22:09:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 22:09:06 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 03 23:09:32 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JWIqS-0004Wi-Rd for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 23:09:17 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JWIpu-00078m-FW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:08:42 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JWIoT-0005Oq-Qz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:07:13 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JWIoR-0005Lz-U4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:07:13 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JWIoR-0005Lk-Nt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:07:11 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-in-04.arcor-online.net ([151.189.21.44]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JWIoM-00008t-Gf; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:07:06 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-in-20-z2.arcor-online.net (mail-in-20-z2.arcor-online.net [151.189.8.85]) by mail-in-04.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1C0E278E7A; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 23:07:02 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from mail-in-17.arcor-online.net (mail-in-17.arcor-online.net [151.189.21.57]) by mail-in-20-z2.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADFE310788E; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 23:07:02 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from lola.goethe.zz (dslb-084-061-058-104.pools.arcor-ip.net [84.61.58.104]) by mail-in-17.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C0F22BB8D1; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 23:07:02 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 3B76B1C1E254; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 23:07:02 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:43:22 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92.1/6097/Mon Mar 3 21:58:29 2008 on mail-in-17.arcor-online.net X-Virus-Status: Clean X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:91236 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >>> (1) What are good ways to declare certain variables dynamic? >> `defvar' is the standard way to do that. CL offers ways to do it inside >> `declare' macro calls, but I don't think it's an important refinement. > >> I am not sure `defvar' is enough. The reason is that using it to fix >> existing packages may require renaming. > > Yes, it may require renaming. It's usually not a big deal, tho. > >>> (2) What packages will break? > >> Hopefully none since the lexbind branch only uses lexical-binding when >> the code asks for it. > >> I did not realize that. In that case, installing it won't break >> anything. > > Modulo bugs, of course, Could you list the advantages and the principal difference, and the kind of breakage to expect? If most developers can agree this is something worth having in the long run, then we should make a plan when to integrate it. I don't have a feeling yet for the 23.1 time/feature frame our maintainers are aiming for, namely how early we are in the feature admission phase. I certainly would like to have a replacement for the ugly (and non-byte-compiled) `(lambda (...) ... ',value ) constructs necessary at various places. Would lexbind help? How? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum