From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tomas Hlavaty Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: thunk.el: Document that thunk-force == funcall? Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 00:13:20 +0100 Message-ID: <87ft561cof.fsf@logand.com> References: <871rgs3tdx.fsf@web.de> <874klnnc6t.fsf@logand.com> <87o8jv3mue.fsf@web.de> <87y2izlusu.fsf@logand.com> <87ima33d62.fsf@web.de> <87lfezwqow.fsf@logand.com> <87ima3w0ts.fsf@logand.com> <87r1oq1f5o.fsf@logand.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="8635"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 19 00:13:58 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 1kfWeE-00028Z-14 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 00:13:58 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:32948 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kfWeC-0002D3-Kw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 18:13:56 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40974) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kfWdi-0001nI-Ep for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 18:13:26 -0500 Original-Received: from logand.com ([37.48.87.44]:48242) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kfWdg-0000Bg-Jj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 18:13:26 -0500 Original-Received: by logand.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 0767A1A8570; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 00:13:23 +0100 (CET) X-Mailer: emacs 26.3 (via feedmail 11-beta-1 I) In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=37.48.87.44; envelope-from=tom@logand.com; helo=logand.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/11/18 17:19:48 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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:259402 Archived-At: On Wed 18 Nov 2020 at 17:49, Stefan Monnier wrote: > *scratch* is actually similar to `ielm`, tho without the prompt and using > "newline" instead of "return" ;-) interesting i haven't used ielm so far >> I don't know how else should have i indicated, that all the code >> bellow needs lexical binding. Is there a way to do that without >> confusing anybody, so that it does not look like it doesn't do what >> the author thinks it does? > > There's no really satisfactory way to do it, but I use > > ;; -*- lexical-binding:t -*- hmm, my key bindings (like C-M-x eval-defun) don't work on that. i would have to use files even for small examples i will think about adopting that a bit more