From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Nix Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Should lexical-let use let in the situation lexical-binding is t ? Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 08:43:03 +0100 Message-ID: <87y5k6tq48.fsf@spindle.srvr.nix> References: <20120918192807.6a426ea58372355516a2ea50@cx4a.org> <878vc63j10.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1348040606 26599 80.91.229.3 (19 Sep 2012 07:43:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 07:43:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: sds@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Sep 19 09:43:28 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 1TEEwQ-0003Lu-Uk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:43:27 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50482 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEEwM-0003dq-MX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 03:43:22 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:49930) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEEwK-0003dk-MM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 03:43:21 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEEwJ-00031F-Rt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 03:43:20 -0400 Original-Received: from icebox.esperi.org.uk ([81.187.191.129]:44639 helo=mail.esperi.org.uk) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEEwB-0002t4-8T; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 03:43:11 -0400 Original-Received: from spindle.srvr.nix (nix@spindle.srvr.nix [192.168.14.15]) by mail.esperi.org.uk (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q8J7h33x024804; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 08:43:03 +0100 Emacs: (setq software-quality (/ 1 number-of-authors)) In-Reply-To: <878vc63j10.fsf@gnu.org> (Sam Steingold's message of "Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:20:43 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2.50 (gnu/linux) X-DCC-URT-Metrics: spindle 1060; Body=2 Fuz1=2 Fuz2=2 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 81.187.191.129 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:153390 Archived-At: On 19 Sep 2012, Sam Steingold uttered the following: >> * Stefan Monnier [2012-09-18 08:44:39 -0400]: >> >> As mentioned in my reply there, the two aren't quite compatible >> (because (lexical-let ((tab-width 4)) foo) will be a lexical binding, > > are you seriously saying that lexical-let ignores defvar?! If it had suddenly changed to make dynamic bindings of defvarred variables, that might well have broken existing code. lexical-let is a lot older than native support for lexical binding. -- NULL && (void)