Re: "Bringing GNU Emacs to Native Code" at the European Lisp Symposium

[Andrea Corallo <akrl@sdf.org>]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

>> 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 was referring to the phrase just before the one we are discussing:

"We point out that, since Emacs Lisp received in 2012 lexical scope
support, two different sub-languages are currently coexisting [15,
Sec. 8.1]."

> 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.

I agree with you that could have been stated more clearly without
assuming the user had visited the reference (this is not a correct
assumption).

>
>> 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.

Thanks again.

  Andrea

-- 
akrl@sdf.org