From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Fren Zeee Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Return Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 07:50:48 -0800 Message-ID: References: <87mxojwu15.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87k4jnweng.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87sjya2b7d.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1291899018 4077 80.91.229.12 (9 Dec 2010 12:50:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 12:50:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 09 13:50:14 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 1PQfwr-0003Y5-Lq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 09 Dec 2010 13:50:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55751 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PQfwq-0007ji-Vt for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 09 Dec 2010 07:50:13 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=38167 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PQMI7-0007GL-89 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:50:52 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PQMI5-00079u-P9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:50:50 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-iw0-f178.google.com ([209.85.214.178]:47358) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PQMI5-00079i-MD; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:50:49 -0500 Original-Received: by iwn1 with SMTP id 1so1926760iwn.9 for ; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 07:50:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ra/e/OwybI/Zzy10tsRaDnW9XzCgpdJfOXTjJKqwerY=; b=seRVCvD+dtsbOcvLkLSDOOoExNUQEXoSsW27V7fbLYSmuX6VWbWUwJ155FHuYJ22d3 TVgQHmN3cQVBHew63I8Zk+QJs80qRF0iIYkv3iXs+e/AbMSXyjv9etcGza/T7l8IKpr/ Ci8D5gWjgKSF64oA++o6asRu2sWc8wGtwtyhY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=c/6Su0u6ER8KAzu64Wt6lpivgvl7SLaHXqdmfgWxNWE3Y0/pJjIUyR0NJMyXDLM0Bv kAym0+LzrmNVwIMRnDqEBY6Ki4L1J8qis60uGQY2sGc94/N60ECO9Qq9bgOrjXX4s5U/ sQ2VjhoJsdY12SDgGyJSrfPT4TGV13/h0opz4= Original-Received: by 10.231.16.131 with SMTP id o3mr9362527iba.38.1291823448167; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 07:50:48 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.231.11.137 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 07:50:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87sjya2b7d.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:133536 Archived-At: On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:17 AM, David Kastrup wrote: > Miles Bader writes: > >> Stefan Monnier writes: >>> Actually, I'm considering to disallow non-top-level defuns in >>> lexical-scope mode, just because it's a good opportunity to introduce >>> such "breakage" and because non-top-level defuns are bugs in 99% of >>> the cases (in Elisp). >> >> I presume by "non-top-level defun" you mean "defun inside a function", >> not "defun inside a form"... > > There are lots of reasons for doing a defun inside of a function. =A0One > important point of Lisp is making it easy to create code > programmatically. > > I don't understand the "bugs in 99% of the cases", I could hardly > imagine any situation where a defun is used inside of a form > unintentionally, without the interpreter/compiler barfing anyway because > of unmatched parens and/or producing totally non-working code that is > straightforward to figure out. > LOL He wants to go back to PASCAL of Niklaus ... from one level style of C and = LISP. Franz Xe