From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Emanuel Berg Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Closures - do you understand them well? Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2023 13:45:56 +0100 Message-ID: <87ilfowq63.fsf@dataswamp.org> References: <87h6y5pt8k.fsf@web.de> <87bkodpqnk.fsf@web.de> <87k030tlfh.fsf@web.de> <87ilike1l8.fsf@gnu.org> <87cz8suv92.fsf@dataswamp.org> <87pmcpo1wz.fsf@web.de> <87pmcpm9vn.fsf@web.de> <87sfg8xcps.fsf@dataswamp.org> <87h6wmacdn.fsf@web.de> <87v8krlo9q.fsf@dataswamp.org> <875ycrsd2c.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="20580"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:yY6gO9z3CbEJtae7lV7cAKx8F9M= Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 27 09:28:47 2023 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 1pWYsI-00053z-MS for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2023 09:28:46 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pWX6p-0008MR-Pi; Mon, 27 Feb 2023 01:35:39 -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 1pWGPo-0004Ps-6K for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Feb 2023 07:46:08 -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 1pWGPl-0007UW-QJ for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Feb 2023 07:46:07 -0500 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pWGPj-0000tX-I7 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Feb 2023 13:46:03 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Mail-Copies-To: never 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, 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-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 01:35:34 -0500 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:142862 Archived-At: Michael Heerdegen wrote: > AFAIU, conceptually the type of binding is a property of the > code - the interpreter just can run both types of code. I think lexical/static is much better than dynamic in general, and was thinking about the other discussion where dynamic typing resulted in much slower compiled code compared with static typing, so what about the binding dialect/variable scope, how does that (lexical vs dynamic) affect the execution speed of the compiled code? Obviously both Elisp and CL has both ... Maybe some optimizations to be made with lexical/static because of the increased enclosure (ha), modularity and predictability? >> And what values are the correct function values then? > > Lexical closures use a different representation - see > > (info "(elisp) Closures") > > The actual structure is not interesting for programming > any more. Are we talking lexical let-closures? Why not? -- underground experts united https://dataswamp.org/~incal