From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Closures - do you understand them well? Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2022 05:49:34 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87lenh7vrn.fsf@web.de> <87tu25d77o.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6y5pt8k.fsf@web.de> <87bkodpqnk.fsf@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="kpk8NmFgWEa4W8DI" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="24652"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 09 05:50:13 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 1p3VKv-0006FL-8X for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2022 05:50:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p3VKQ-00030e-6o; Thu, 08 Dec 2022 23:49:42 -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 1p3VKO-00030F-Ez for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2022 23:49:40 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.tuxteam.de ([5.199.139.25]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p3VKM-0005tp-MF for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2022 23:49:40 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tuxteam.de; s=mail; h=From:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:To:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=NuBi/Bc7hWhjjkCbFqwqyX6HKcNOycNhcPcrNpCmCkQ=; b=pQMVM+R9iYdnEZnaA2gM9cdb+V Nvn3WPpQraRO8Gbea0s5vDe4bD9acCFwAklQ08LCsUCCTToEVs2xEnTurbIS+uKTvETF4hjVDOWLI QNGr7lpM7i7f7OspmjSj1aKsIsq+B92L29b/Ik8f5YPJDzAuJMCwszUZwZ245uJCZEWWNOxxAqWoq PHxRykSOVYryJAVl07D4OvF5s7kw0f2cpGlaA3j6rxwSNyPV+SM1bFcFwOiERkR+szL79BJOgrWPb du1fqDtS15QXceT1Ka+rwBMRowr4MEqyG7a0isYcu9pa9hxc9xzHaO/4rpjXF4H3f17zMqgMyBRLs +XKF4N+A==; Original-Received: from tomas by mail.tuxteam.de with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1p3VKI-0006vZ-Qg for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2022 05:49:34 +0100 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=5.199.139.25; envelope-from=tomas@tuxteam.de; helo=mail.tuxteam.de X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham 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:141492 Archived-At: --kpk8NmFgWEa4W8DI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 05:00:14PM -0500, Stefan Monnier via Users list for= the GNU Emacs text editor wrote: > >> In ELisp, both `dotimes` and `dolist` create a new binding for `i` at > >> each iteration of the loop. > > This is probably what most people expect from a loop. >=20 > I find this behavior cleaner, indeed (which is why I changed `dotimes` > and `dolist` to provide that behavior :-). This is funny. I did come up with the right answer. Truth be said, Michael's "tone" was set up in a way to raise awareness ("now, look carefully"), so this has surely played a role. That said, this is actually the behaviour I expect (and like), so reading your note taught me something: expectations here seem to vary, and mine isn't the "only", much less the "right" one. And I might meet loop constructs with local bindings :) So I learnt something from the riddle, after all [1]. > > `cl-loop' doesn't. >=20 > Indeed, when I looked at it, I decided it was too much trouble figuring > out how to change `cl-loop` to provide that behavior :-( > IMO `cl-loop` is too complex for its own good. Uh-huh. I never wanted to learn a whole language to just do looping :-) Thanks for the riddle and all the follow-up! [1] The most general rule seems still to be: "all generalisations suck" --=20 t --kpk8NmFgWEa4W8DI Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EABECAB0WIQRp53liolZD6iXhAoIFyCz1etHaRgUCY5K+VwAKCRAFyCz1etHa Rk/OAJ9OZSP/oBi3vO1K02YIY0LVn6F2rQCffMTra7CIhmZBSNtJqlu3idyrjD0= =1Ndw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --kpk8NmFgWEa4W8DI--