From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Sam Steingold Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Should lexical-let use let in the situation lexical-binding is t ? Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:06:51 -0400 Organization: disorganization Message-ID: <87mx0lzmys.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20120918192807.6a426ea58372355516a2ea50@cx4a.org> Reply-To: sds@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1348092438 3317 80.91.229.3 (19 Sep 2012 22:07:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 22:07:18 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 20 00:07:21 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TESQO-0002TR-Q9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:07:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53281 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TESQK-0001XV-Df for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:07:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58813) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TESQI-0001XP-EN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:07:11 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TESQH-0000KJ-8n for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:07:10 -0400 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:45475) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TESQH-0000K6-2E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:07:09 -0400 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TESQJ-0002Qa-U3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:07:11 +0200 Original-Received: from 74.113.160.197 ([74.113.160.197]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:07:11 +0200 Original-Received: from sds by 74.113.160.197 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:07:11 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 20 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 74.113.160.197 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2.50 (gnu/linux) X-Attribution: Sam X-Disclaimer: You should not expect anyone to agree with me. Cancel-Lock: sha1:fbNkRaja4ieBLFoRKB+ckJgNucM= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:153396 Archived-At: > * Richard Stallman [2012-09-19 10:12:38 -0400]: > > This said, there can be good reasons to force a lexical binding, when > you fear that the code might be run in a context where the variable > might happen to be defvar'd. > > I am very skeptical of that claim. It seems to me that if your local > variable is defvar'd by some other code, that is a kind of name > collision and that other code should use a different name which isn't > likely to collide with local variables. yep, that's why Common Lisp recommends defvar'd variables to be named with "*" around the names. -- Sam Steingold (http://sds.podval.org/) on Ubuntu 12.04 (precise) X 11.0.11103000 http://www.childpsy.net/ http://ffii.org http://think-israel.org http://www.memritv.org http://honestreporting.com There are no answers, only cross references.