Re: e and pi

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA> writes:

> Indeed, there are a few places where Elisp code binds dynamic variables
> not with a let but with a function argument.  I find this revolting, and
> would welcome a byte-compiler warning to "flog the author with a wet
> noodle".

I think Gnus does this a few places.  Feel free to add a noodly compiler
warning, and I'll fix it up.

I think the plan to make bindings be lexical is great, but I'm not sure
what all the discussion about e, argv and pi is.  :-)

This is my understanding: You want bindings to behave like in Common
Lisp, and have all special variables (i.e., things that have been
defined with defvar) to have dynamic scope (like today), and have all
the rest have lexical bindings.  And the problem is that some variables
(well, constants) like `e' and `pi' are likely to be used by people in
bindings, so they'll get dynamic bindings where they don't expect it.
Is that a fair summary?

In that case, just go ahead and rename the variables.

(Although I don't really see how not using function arguments as dynamic
bindings really help much, but I agree that it's confusing.)

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen