From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juanma Barranquero Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: lexbind ready for merge Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:20:02 +0200 Message-ID: References: <4D926EA9.5080509@gmail.com> <4D92AD2B.40502@gmail.com> <4D9347BB.8030507@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1301498458 11781 80.91.229.12 (30 Mar 2011 15:20:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:20:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Daniel Colascione Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 30 17:20:54 2011 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 1Q4xCY-00010N-4a for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:20:54 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38505 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q4xCX-0001wt-IY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:20:53 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=42608 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q4xCO-0001tJ-Ty for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:20:47 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q4xCN-0003GB-3k for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:20:44 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-qy0-f176.google.com ([209.85.216.176]:64288) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q4xCN-0003A5-03 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:20:43 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-qy0-f176.google.com with SMTP id 30so1182253qyk.0 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:20:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=q7AdGgPa2ufeMqgmW6IvM7x1dC912rQPubmkZeIzL+Y=; b=C5v6HZ4M3ej0mfvUcMaWSRjS8mMKR7RinaJBYV+zyPIMeApmW55KQKnRgwM97QE1Oh YIMsLFEY6q+zH1q5T3A5xdODnsBRHdjepNsK6mrfqZ7+STztXlxrr843zTKZDWF0WE9V 7cI3PprZuho10DYX5qVeRGxa5xL33KnWCz4xo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Yk9LCn3Xi1fvGikQ3T5+0x2OFIVA1iG4LZ22HXaYdDeQPx3UybHAYFPAxwDRSaon+l ujl6GOolJF7x0U4Tvy4LfAoisStgszL+gqx+3kknTbV1naL/I0qriGd59homczdDLCTV wV+HaGdEI1h7/+YCXDoreVMRLhwcTZ2E2f4Ek= Original-Received: by 10.229.115.18 with SMTP id g18mr1084583qcq.246.1301498442594; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:20:42 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.229.94.207 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:20:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4D9347BB.8030507@gmail.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 209.85.216.176 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:137919 Archived-At: On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 17:09, Daniel Colascione wrote: > Well, it's a great idea if you're into that kind of thing. I suppose yes, I'm "into that kind of thing", then. What can you expect from a guy whose languages of choice are Ada and Common Lisp? > Personally, > I feel that having the ability to peer inside a module's state and see > what's wrong is helpful, and truly private variables don't add much over > having a naming convention that discourages casual modification. Having private variables does not preclude peering inside, you just need accessors :-) As per naming conventions discouraging modification... Some users/programmers might see that as a challenge to overcome ;-) But anyway, my question was because your "bad idea" comment seemed to imply that private lexical variables were technically unsound, while is just that you don't like the style. Fair enough. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Juanma