From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tassilo Horn Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: DocView AutoFitting via "doc-view-autofit-mode" Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 17:18:06 +0200 Message-ID: <87r4w4yhch.fsf@thinkpad.tsdh.de> References: <4F764EBB.5030102@googlemail.com> <87sjgnbxth.fsf@thinkpad.tsdh.de> <4F79E8D5.8080701@googlemail.com> <4F7AFD5D.3030809@googlemail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1333466311 14050 80.91.229.3 (3 Apr 2012 15:18:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:18:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Moritz Maxeiner , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 03 17:18:26 2012 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 1SF5V3-0002pQ-72 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 17:18:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54972 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SF5V2-0004yU-CI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:18:24 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:40520) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SF5Uw-0004yN-8u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:18:22 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SF5Up-0006CT-TE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:18:17 -0400 Original-Received: from deliver.uni-koblenz.de ([141.26.64.15]:42833) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SF5Up-0006C8-NK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:18:11 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by deliver.uni-koblenz.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B55F1A4120; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 17:18:10 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at uni-koblenz.de Original-Received: from deliver.uni-koblenz.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (deliver.uni-koblenz.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5fDlWHGm5raq; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 17:18:09 +0200 (CEST) X-CHKRCPT: Envelopesender noch tassilo@member.fsf.org Original-Received: from thinkpad.tsdh.de (tsdh.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.67.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by deliver.uni-koblenz.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ADA931A40ED; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 17:18:09 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Tue, 03 Apr 2012 10:51:29 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.130004 (Ma Gnus v0.4) Emacs/24.0.94 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 141.26.64.15 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:149337 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >>>> It is already enabled (bzr trunk), I just didn't see it. Strangely >>>> enough, using `lexical-let' inside a lexical binding enabled file >>>> produces tons of "bad lexing" errors when used with named functions >>>> (It doesn't in lexica-binding disabled files). >>> I don't know what "used with named functions" mean. >> In the context of what was talked about >> (lambda () (message "foo")) >> would be an unnamed function, whereas >> (defun foo () (message "foo")) >> would be a function named "foo" > > I know, but that doesn't explain the "used with". > Obviously, named functions are used all over the place with > lexical-binding, so they do work in many circumstances. Moritz meant you get strange error messages when using lexical-let in a lexical-binding enabled file. This is a test case: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- ;; -*- lexical-binding: t -*- (defun foo (arg) arg) (lexical-let ((x 1)) (foo x)) --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- When you eval the last form, you get a message [bad-lexical-ref]. Well, that's actually not a bad thing, because if the file uses lexical-binding there's no reason for using lexical-let. The message is just not very clear. Bye, Tassilo