From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: "Bringing GNU Emacs to Native Code" at the European Lisp Symposium Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 12:29:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <69d8b48d-bd09-41c1-a89d-ed76fe0284a4@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="56480"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Stefan Kangas , Emacs developers To: Andrea Corallo Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 29 21:30:54 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jTsQ0-000EYS-5o for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 21:30:52 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41820 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jTsPz-0000kn-5M for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:30:51 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46176) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jTsP3-0007pl-BY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:29:56 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jTsOo-0003of-OY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:29:52 -0400 Original-Received: from userp2130.oracle.com ([156.151.31.86]:43306) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jTsOo-0003oL-4v for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:29:38 -0400 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp2130.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2130.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 03TJHPMY064025; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 19:29:35 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=3xafK+/YtVbNFRgVgj8EXMgc4mcE9LPH5W/yGImkKgk=; b=N29qYyp15KPNzyQC/Lajw5v/CzDvKnLVn2RudoUP6MjPcEMAxU7jIrA+hhngLA4/pMcc Pt66qnldlOhH3p7dXU1ZexRdVTJMFEnQZ7sKUapzErp5HNLRXPC2nXJKgZzrCFfy0jmJ OuBGD/FvDaHcevDe/nlz4bu9c5JAKvJD1GdWNBIBdpoyg3es5qhdsCM4/C7dMGoHdQCN St9KsVOe7WWSRb1Dr426fabVkbFjybaNsGglX7tiA7TQL+dFHK5N/TPx1u/T3/nEvfwG pYjracbpsiYbeeXyW2+6cJ4CZ+rnbjZuuxLUFhRNtVuMq1XsiqgMAVBbD4GMWIH83NKz Tg== Original-Received: from userp3020.oracle.com (userp3020.oracle.com [156.151.31.79]) by userp2130.oracle.com with ESMTP id 30p01nx8my-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 29 Apr 2020 19:29:35 +0000 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp3020.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3020.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 03TJC1GF165298; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 19:29:35 GMT Original-Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by userp3020.oracle.com with ESMTP id 30pvd1qk77-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 29 Apr 2020 19:29:34 +0000 Original-Received: from abhmp0020.oracle.com (abhmp0020.oracle.com [141.146.116.26]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 03TJTTYk028791; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 19:29:30 GMT In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.4993.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9606 signatures=668686 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2003020000 definitions=main-2004290144 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9606 signatures=668686 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2003020000 definitions=main-2004290144 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=156.151.31.86; envelope-from=drew.adams@oracle.com; helo=userp2130.oracle.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/04/29 15:29:36 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 156.151.31.86 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:248185 Archived-At: >>> As the reference in the previous phrase explains >>> this is just about what we control in Emacs with >>> the `lexical-binding' variable. >> A suggestion would be to be explicit about this >> in the future - or else explain the phrase. > > I was referring to the phrase just before the > one we are discussing: >=20 > "We point out that, since Emacs Lisp received in > 2012 lexical scope support, two different > sub-languages are currently coexisting [15, Sec. 8.1]." I see, thanks. So a reader who consults Sect 8.1 of that paper by Stefan will learn that he uses the values of variable `lexical-binding' to define two Elisp sub-languages. Yes, that's certainly a complete reference. But that's not what I meant by suggesting to be explicit about what you mean by the lexical Elisp dialect, i.e., that you are, in effect, using variable `lexical-binding' to define two dialects. It's a lot clearer to just say that your work assumes a non-nil value of that variable (and there's nothing wrong with that), than it is to either (1) hope that someone guesses what you mean by the lexical Elisp dialect or (2) expect that a reader will consult Sect 8.1 of Stefan's paper and figure out what you mean from that. > > I personally think the phrase used is confusing, > > and perhaps misleading. Yes, one could argue > > that variable `lexical-binding' kind of splits > > Elisp currently into two languages. But that's > > not a usual way of looking at it, and it's not > > the way that Emacs talks about itself. >=20 > I agree with you that could have been stated more > clearly without assuming the user had visited the > reference (this is not a correct assumption). No problem. Hindsight's 20-20. And perhaps you thought that it's common to speak of such Elisp dialects? That might be a reasonable assumption from reading Stefan's paper. Now you know that there's at least one Elisp user who misunderstood.