From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Return Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:28:22 +0900 Message-ID: <87wrnkvi3t.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <87mxojwu15.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87k4jnweng.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87d3pdwt1x.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1291793402 21672 80.91.229.12 (8 Dec 2010 07:30:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 07:30:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: MON KEY Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Dec 08 08:29:58 2010 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PQETJ-0002Za-QU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 08:29:55 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56428 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PQETJ-0007KA-6R for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 02:29:53 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=37623 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PQETD-0007K5-Lc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 02:29:48 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PQETC-0002GP-6V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 02:29:47 -0500 Original-Received: from imss12.cc.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.254.161]:51085) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PQETB-0002GI-LN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 02:29:46 -0500 Original-Received: from imss12.cc.tsukuba.ac.jp (imss12.cc.tsukuba.ac.jp [127.0.0.1]) by postfix.imss71 (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2BFA2AF543; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 16:29:42 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from mgmt1.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (unknown [130.158.97.223]) by imss12.cc.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D423C2AF542; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 16:29:42 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mgmt1.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D23AB3FA04FB; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 16:29:42 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4CF7911F034; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 16:28:22 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM undefined under 21.5 (beta29) "garbanzo" ed3b274cc037 XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:133529 Archived-At: MON KEY writes: > On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > > MON KEY writes: > > > > No, it won't. However, I must say (as a maintainer) that use of > > lambdas often imposes extra work on debuggers. I almost always give > > lambdas a nickname when I'm reading code that uses them, unless > > they're simply implementing partial evaluation. > > I'm sorry, but it isn't clear, for which language? Any language that has lambdas. Especially Ruby, where lambda (aka anonymous block) abuse is reaching levels that demand protective legislation for the poor little critters. > The question is (apropos the above) when will what happen where? > ;-) Once you have the answer for lambda, you have the answer for defun, and vice versa, modulo the symbol deref required for a defun'ed symbol. The answer for lambda (resp. defun) is left as an exercise for the reader. > AFAIK the discussion is still re return/return-from/block and presumably by > proxy go/tagbody etc. with the ostensible lexbind sprinkled on top. You're confused, then. Sorry, I guess I should have changed the subject to "defun vs. lambda". :-) Of the concepts you belatedly reintroduce here, only "lexbind" has been mentioned in the last 4 or 5 messages in this subthread, and the paragraph above applies perfectly well to all that other stuff anyway. > I am curious to learn how you understand all of what you say re lexcial scoping > to jibe with lambda, closures, and macroexpansion at compile time, and more > particularly with consideration as to why Common Lisp's `lambda-lists-keywords' > contains an &environment and &whole? It should be clear: I haven't even thought about it since the publication of CLTL1, and even then I considered it a spectator sport. But I don't need to think about it, in the question of lambda vs. defun. > > Frankly, I don't see any such general acknowledgement in the general > > Emacs community. > > Most likely those who might otherwise caucus more vocally have left > with a whimper. I predict that's what you will do, too. You're trying to score debating points, but that cuts no ice here. What counts are code and user requirements explained in a way that makes sense to the Emacs maintainers. All three (code, requirement, making sense) must be present or your feature won't make it to the distributed Emacs.