Eshell and lexical bindings

Eshell and lexical bindings

[Nathan Trapuzzano]

I'm thinking about implementing optional lexical evaluation of forms
given to Eshell.  My intuition is to just use the buffer-local
`lexical-binding' variable to determine whether or not to evaluate forms
with lexical bindings.  Does anyone have a better idea?

Nathan

Re: Eshell and lexical bindings

[Nathan Trapuzzano]

Nathan Trapuzzano <nbtrap@nbtrap.com> writes:

> Does anyone have a better idea?

And would anyone that already knows the code like to volunteer?

Re: Eshell and lexical bindings

[Stefan Monnier]

> I'm thinking about implementing optional lexical evaluation of forms
> given to Eshell.  My intuition is to just use the buffer-local
> `lexical-binding' variable to determine whether or not to evaluate forms
> with lexical bindings.  Does anyone have a better idea?

I'd venture a guess that you can change to lexical-binding all-hog and
no user will notice.


        Stefan

Re: Eshell and lexical bindings

[Nathan Trapuzzano]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> all-hog

What is this?

Re: Eshell and lexical bindings

[Stefan Monnier]

>> all-hog
> What is this?

I'm not a native speaker, and have never really learned the exact
meaning, but my understanding of it is a mix of "all the way",
"bluntly", and "without looking back".


        Stefan

Re: Eshell and lexical bindings

[Nathan Trapuzzano]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>>> all-hog
>> What is this?
>
> I'm not a native speaker, and have never really learned the exact
> meaning, but my understanding of it is a mix of "all the way",
> "bluntly", and "without looking back".

Will no one notice because no one uses it?

By the way, IELM already does evaluation with lexical binding according
to the value of lexical-binding.  I didn't know that.  I think I'll just
use ielm instead of eshell.

Re: Eshell and lexical bindings

[Stefan Monnier]

>> I'm not a native speaker, and have never really learned the exact
>> meaning, but my understanding of it is a mix of "all the way",
>> "bluntly", and "without looking back".
> Will no one notice because no one uses it?

No: because the code that a user is likely to type there will behave the
same regardless of `lexical-binding'.


        Stefan

Re: Eshell and lexical bindings

[Stephen Berman]

On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 08:30:01 -0400 Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

>>> all-hog
>> What is this?
>
> I'm not a native speaker, and have never really learned the exact
> meaning, but my understanding of it is a mix of "all the way",
> "bluntly", and "without looking back".

FYI, the phrase is "whole hog", typically in the idiom "go whole hog"
(in American English; in British English the idiom is apparently "go the
whole hog").  It's similar to "go all out", which you may also have been
thinking of.

Steve Berman

Re: Eshell and lexical bindings

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Stephen Berman writes:

 > FYI, the phrase is "whole hog", typically in the idiom "go whole hog"
 > (in American English; in British English the idiom is apparently "go the
 > whole hog").  It's similar to "go all out", which you may also have been
 > thinking of.

I think in this case Stefan's exact meaning would likely be captured
by "go for it" (or more CC ("commercially correct" :-) but not as
exact) "Just Do It".

The "whole hog" has somewhat sloppy connotations, BTW.  I'd never say
that *to* one of my contributors with the meaning of "go right ahead
(do whatever you want)", though it surely would be appropriate to say
*of* Ben Wing that he frequently "goes the whole hog." :-)