From: Thomas Link <samul@web.de>
Subject: Re: Differences between Elisp and Lisp
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 16:17:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3eae89b4$0$13158$3b214f66@usenet.univie.ac.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <vfk7ddmr07.fsf@rpc71.cs.man.ac.uk>
> I thought that CL already implemented lexical binding? At least within
> a let form (or "lexical-let").
I guess it's faking lexical binding by replacing variable names with
gensyms. This makes it pseudo-lexical but not more efficient.
> If emacs just went to using lexical binding in the large, I suspect
> that it would cause lots of problems with existing packages. I have
> used dynamic scoping to achieve ends in the past, which might be a bit
> nasty, but it does work!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but e.g. Common Lisp has dynamic binding for
variables defined with defvar. The following works with clisp:
(defvar x 1)
(defun y (a) (+ x 1))
(y 1) => 2
(let ((x 10)) (y 1)) => 11
So one could have both. The question is, which one should be the
"default" mode and which one should be subject to special constructs.
Cheers,
Thomas.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-04-29 14:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <mailman.5343.1051607007.21513.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
2003-04-29 10:22 ` Differences between Elisp and Lisp Friedrich Dominicus
2003-04-29 10:27 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
2003-04-29 10:35 ` David Kastrup
2003-04-29 11:03 ` Oliver Scholz
2003-04-29 12:23 ` Phillip Lord
2003-04-29 14:17 ` Thomas Link [this message]
2003-04-29 15:43 ` Kent M Pitman
2003-04-29 15:56 ` Phillip Lord
2003-04-29 16:44 ` Kent M Pitman
2003-04-29 17:16 ` Phillip Lord
2003-04-29 18:41 ` Kai Großjohann
2003-04-30 12:39 ` Phillip Lord
2003-04-30 13:12 ` Kai Großjohann
2003-04-30 18:07 ` Kevin Rodgers
2003-04-29 18:59 ` Oliver Scholz
2003-04-30 12:43 ` Phillip Lord
2003-04-29 17:01 ` Kai Großjohann
2003-04-30 23:02 ` Stefan Monnier
2003-05-01 5:22 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
2003-05-01 5:41 ` Friedrich Dominicus
2003-05-01 5:54 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
2003-05-01 6:37 ` [OT] " Friedrich Dominicus
[not found] ` <yoijznm9y5yr.fsf@bilbo.dd.chalmers.se>
2003-04-29 13:45 ` Kent M Pitman
2003-04-29 15:23 ` Nicolas Neuss
2003-04-29 15:28 ` Nicolas Neuss
2003-04-29 14:23 ` Marco Antoniotti
2003-04-29 14:29 ` Phillip Lord
2003-04-29 19:06 ` Oliver Scholz
2003-04-29 16:51 ` Kaz Kylheku
2003-04-29 8:57 Daniel R. Anderson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='3eae89b4$0$13158$3b214f66@usenet.univie.ac.at' \
--to=samul@web.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).