From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lennart Borgman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Why are there two dolist? Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:52:53 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87ocqlifnj.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1250067196 9604 80.91.229.12 (12 Aug 2009 08:53:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:53:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 12 10:53:09 2009 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 4.50) id 1Mb9a0-0007Ai-GE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:53:08 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44429 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mb9Zy-0001LC-E4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 04:53:06 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mb9Zt-0001Kv-FJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 04:53:01 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mb9Zp-0001Im-TL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 04:53:01 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58686 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mb9Zp-0001Id-On for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 04:52:57 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-yw0-f202.google.com ([209.85.211.202]:50925) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Mb9Zm-0003vC-WB; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 04:52:55 -0400 Original-Received: by ywh40 with SMTP id 40so6233686ywh.14 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 01:52:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Hrt7Z0XUh3udFLAQOSRBdHPdxFOB+Mw57RzHkTxZ4OA=; b=P1P3JCHXjbgdS5fdhnHEfQoVERy1Z4zPCByAweTXnij7l6eo5/dHEc1YWnhGGiTQAV EsUcHCizVniCc5Vkw9yNb4fVC4Rp1kLI6j0FoFx/RWhISSznESua4T0GEf1K9OiY0X4/ vtcNVm5RSA/9eVsw+iBTi1DE6EbpP7e4jDtSg= 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=FJhEWtqE9egbB+G1Lh/6NmGjJ/7paKcbfgq6QOyfqymZDScPmaTW+ZQzWeyPuNX7Ot HIQNmaPmzXb4BCprl7Sko6ozzKxQn7WWN8DdW7VPlnWyM022Sy6h44x22wiLEtLJQFG1 yAJ7ct8ksatn5uWKAgTaqqTEGy9VRNwjPXEGY= Original-Received: by 10.101.60.19 with SMTP id n19mr11707ank.181.1250067173841; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 01:52:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87ocqlifnj.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.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:114130 Archived-At: On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:45 AM, David Kastrup wrote: > Lennart Borgman writes: > >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Lennart >> Borgman wrote: >>> And shouldn't they say that you do not have to intern/declare VAR? >> >> - There is one definition in subr.el and one in cl-macro.el. (I think >> I said this before.) >> >> - And I meant it should say that the variable is let bound inside >> dolist, ie there is a (let ((VAR ...) inside the defmacro dolist. That >> is not clear to from the doc string. The word "bound" there could >> equally well mean that (setq VAR ...) was used. > > No. =C2=A0Binding and setting a variable are fundamentally different thin= gs > and not interchangeable. =C2=A0While there is a small bit of overlap in > current Emacs (because of its dynamic binding implementation), with > regard to language idioms the concepts are clearly separate, and with a > lexically binding Lisp variant (which we might get some day) the > semantics are even more separated. Ok, but it not pretty obvious when you got for example `boundp'. So even if the concepts are clearly separate then the use of the names does not seem to be that. And that was actually what I asked about. Hm, there is really no easy way to be correct if you have taken some steps aside.