From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Michael Heerdegen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Another question about lambdas Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2022 02:56:03 +0100 Message-ID: <871qp5o05o.fsf@web.de> References: <87tu23kw9x.fsf@web.de> <861qp67wgm.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn6yyflc.fsf@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="20135"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:znj4KmU0TZYz+1qvC5R55Jzx1YU= Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 12 02:57:03 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1p4Y3y-00052p-N6 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 12 Dec 2022 02:57:02 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p4Y3E-0005TO-Mj; Sun, 11 Dec 2022 20:56:16 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p4Y3D-0005TB-2j for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Dec 2022 20:56:15 -0500 Original-Received: from ciao.gmane.io ([116.202.254.214]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p4Y3B-0000O0-7v for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Dec 2022 20:56:14 -0500 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1p4Y38-0003Zv-7i for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Dec 2022 02:56:10 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Received-SPF: pass client-ip=116.202.254.214; envelope-from=geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; helo=ciao.gmane.io X-Spam_score_int: -15 X-Spam_score: -1.6 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.help:141659 Archived-At: writes: > (now let me get out of the trap: I have to admit that I didn't stop > to think about dynamic binding). At university I learned that lexical binding would be more intuitive to understand, but harder to implement. I thought I was special because I always found dynamic binding more intuitive. I thought it was because I learned Lisp mostly by using Emacs, at a time where lexical binding was only available using a strange thing called `lexical-let' (AFAIR you had to require cl to use it). But it seems that dynamic binding is the more intuitive scoping rule for a lot of people. And a lot have their problems with lexical binding and closures. Michael.