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 08:35:23 -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="52308"; 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 17:38:18 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 1jTomw-000DW2-2Q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 17:38:18 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49882 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jTomv-00057Y-3F for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 11:38:17 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:33026) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jTolr-0002iU-24 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 11:37:14 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jTokF-0005l5-6B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 11:36:49 -0400 Original-Received: from aserp2120.oracle.com ([141.146.126.78]:46716) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jTokE-0005bM-KE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 11:35:30 -0400 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (aserp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 03TFIvNu072293; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:35:28 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=dTq1qiSGA1mh6RbKRRHTwyH1B/O5x0w3TtdotSvZLqY=; b=oo/eytXVbaFfyqJOTWRKIRXw8NU+hYGFvuVkzZi9jGlzBaBmyJgCz5+l6yge5A3kJzZV Dwk341XwvrUh8lBNaAnP9V7bpS/pZr1nlDFojDQJxpkYZ01w2vg2n91UEGi2YhiDFdi5 kXglv9XXXdBtJ7ap7dshiIOClwZdcR3LvIJiA5bsrycdto3axHp0tTC97/gY1RGjy4Nn 1sk8XvgC8+r/dX9c27sHVEGVGWzLsroeJFUiZx79vIaiLEjnJhYGnrPUzediKElxNeP/ HYZlhpR9i9tfHT2256qCk92T50SCYyG94ab2Du9CGRDSZMNBDOFqtKbe3VCRjc9HRu+J iA== Original-Received: from aserp3030.oracle.com (aserp3030.oracle.com [141.146.126.71]) by aserp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 30nucg6g31-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:35:28 +0000 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (aserp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 03TFI5gY051730; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:35:28 GMT Original-Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by aserp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 30mxrvb65b-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:35:28 +0000 Original-Received: from abhmp0016.oracle.com (abhmp0016.oracle.com [141.146.116.22]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 03TFZOgZ021597; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:35:24 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 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2003020000 definitions=main-2004290128 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9606 signatures=668686 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 mlxlogscore=999 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2003020000 definitions=main-2004290128 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=141.146.126.78; envelope-from=drew.adams@oracle.com; helo=aserp2120.oracle.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/04/29 10:51:39 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 141.146.126.78 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:248155 Archived-At: > > FWIW, I don't agree with this prognostication > > or point of view, from the paper, starting > > after "since": > > > > "The proposed compiler focuses on generating > > code for the new lexically scoped dialect only, > > since the dynamic one is considered obsolete > > and close to deprecation." > > > > Dunno who, besides perhaps Stefan, considers > > dynamic binding in Elisp to be "obsolete and > > close to deprecation". That would be a mistake. > > > > IMO, Emacs Lisp should, like Common Lisp and for > > even stronger reasons, continue to make use of > > both dynamic and lexical binding. Each has its > > uses in Elisp. >=20 > As the reference in the previous phrase explains > this is just about what we control in Emacs with > the `lexical-binding' variable. Dunno what previous phrase you refer to. That variable isn't mentioned in the paper (other than appearing in a code example). A suggestion would be to be explicit about this in the future - or else explain the phrase. 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. At some point the default value of that variable may be (will likely be) `t' - a good thing, IMO. At that point, there'll be no possibility to speak of such "dialects". My opinion would be to also avoid speaking of them now. Count me as one who was misled/confused by that particular phrase, and doesn't think it's helpful without some explanation. > Apologies if you think this could have been > phrased better, I hope the misunderstanding > is clarified. No need to apologize, at all. It's clear to me now; thank you for clarifying. And thanks for the great work (!) and clear paper about it.