From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Return Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 12:10:11 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87mxojwu15.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87k4jnweng.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87sjya2b7d.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1291742024 28585 80.91.229.12 (7 Dec 2010 17:13:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 17:13:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 07 18:13:40 2010 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 1PQ16h-00013e-Cy for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Dec 2010 18:13:40 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56019 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PQ16g-0002zV-AE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Dec 2010 12:13:38 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=35506 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PQ13Y-0001bO-2Q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Dec 2010 12:10:25 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PQ13T-0002QM-7M for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Dec 2010 12:10:23 -0500 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:43321 helo=ironport2-out.pppoe.ca) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PQ13O-0002OV-9N; Tue, 07 Dec 2010 12:10:14 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjoIAK75/UxMCosK/2dsb2JhbACiPYEGcsFlhUkEhGKNfg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,311,1288584000"; d="scan'208";a="84755390" Original-Received: from 76-10-139-10.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO ceviche.home) ([76.10.139.10]) by ironport2-out.pppoe.ca with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 07 Dec 2010 12:10:12 -0500 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 15AD66616B; Tue, 7 Dec 2010 12:10:12 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87sjya2b7d.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> (David Kastrup's message of "Tue, 07 Dec 2010 10:17:58 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. 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:133507 Archived-At: >>> Actually, I'm considering to disallow non-top-level defuns in >>> lexical-scope mode, just because it's a good opportunity to introduce >>> such "breakage" and because non-top-level defuns are bugs in 99% of >>> the cases (in Elisp). >> I presume by "non-top-level defun" you mean "defun inside a function", >> not "defun inside a form"... Yes. > There are lots of reasons for doing a defun inside of a function. One > important point of Lisp is making it easy to create code > programmatically. There's `fset' for that. > I don't understand the "bugs in 99% of the cases", I could hardly > imagine any situation where a defun is used inside of a form > unintentionally, That's because you understand Elisp. many Elisp programmers don't. Stefan