From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Richard M. Stallman" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: "Misunderstanding of the lambda calculus" Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 14:38:35 -0500 Message-ID: References: <200601291251.32808.jyavner@member.fsf.org> <857j8i51hk.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <85k6chwm59.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87y80wkxbd.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1138831719 29956 80.91.229.2 (1 Feb 2006 22:08:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 22:08:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: jyavner@member.fsf.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 01 23:08:34 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F4Q63-0006MW-EJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 23:05:04 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F4Q97-0000lz-E5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:08:13 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1F4OE1-0003mV-6e for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 15:05:09 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1F4ODx-0003kT-BL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 15:05:06 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F4NsU-0005sl-7m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 14:42:55 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1F4Nr7-000161-8y; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 14:41:29 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1F4NoJ-0000Ah-DF; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 14:38:35 -0500 Original-To: Stefan Monnier In-reply-to: <87y80wkxbd.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> (message from Stefan Monnier on Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:09:08 -0500) 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:49882 Archived-At: It should probably say something like "older Lisps", since it is indeed a fact (AFAIK) that all Lisps defined "recently" (around the time or EuLisp, Common Lisp, Scheme, ...) use lexical scoping by default. Emacs Lisp was defined in 1984, which makes it newer than Common Lisp or Scheme. As for efficiency: except for naive interpreters, static scoping is generally more rather than less efficient. I only know how to write a naive interpreter. Anyway, having implemented static scoping in an interpreter for Common Lisp, I wanted nothing like that again!