Re: Another question about lambdas

[Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org>]

Michael Heerdegen wrote:

> 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).

It's just how those `let' behaves, one only complicates matter
by speaking of dynamic vs lexical scope in general.
Have a `dlet' and a `llet' and both would be easy
to understand with no need to theorize, at least not to
understand them, it can be interesting for other reasons ...

And yes, the lexical one would be more intuitive since it's in
line with all the data hiding/encapsulation/sandboxing stuff
one has been up to longe before one heard those buzzwords ...

I mean, why do we have all this f(x) and g() { x } notation in
programming if it is, or can be, actually the same x as some
x outside of that? Just looking at it, and writing it, tells
me, "hey, this is an x of it's own". But with dynamic scope it
sometimes isn't and you have to look somewhere else, execute
code in your head etc to find out.

(With `let' it's actually the other way around but it's just
the other side of thinking the same thing, with `let', i.e.,
the lexical one, it's "those x stays here".)

> And a lot have their problems with lexical binding
> and closures.

What do you mean, what's up with them?

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal