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: lexical-binding rationale? Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:37:22 -0500 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1326479864 4065 80.91.229.12 (13 Jan 2012 18:37:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:37:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dave Abrahams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 13 19:37:40 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Rlm0N-0001Sv-R3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:37:36 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47772 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rlm0N-0000T1-F9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:37:35 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:41253) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rlm0H-0000Rj-6v for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:37:32 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rlm0D-00012H-3I for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:37:29 -0500 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:34777) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rlm0D-00012B-0q; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:37:25 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAHB5EE9FxKkV/2dsb2JhbABChRCoG4EGgXIBAQQBIzMjBQsLGgIYDgICFBgNJIgNpVyROoEviViBFgSIPJphhFI X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,505,1320642000"; d="scan'208";a="156628881" Original-Received: from 69-196-169-21.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([69.196.169.21]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 13 Jan 2012 13:37:22 -0500 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 321F559439; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:37:22 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Dave Abrahams's message of "Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:28:53 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.181 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:147647 Archived-At: > Maybe it's fine the way it is. My impression was that it was going to > be affected by a local variable setting in the current buffer, but IIUC > it is a local variable setting in the buffer from which elisp is being > read (? this isn't entirely clear=E2=80=94and it should be=E2=80=94from t= he > documentation). Right. The variable is looked up when calling `eval', not when processing let-bindings. So indeed it is the value in the buffer from which the code was `read' that is important, rather than the value in the buffer that happens to be current when a new binding is created. Stefan