bug#27674: 26.0.50; cl-progv: strange scoping due to implementation

[Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de>]

npostavs@users.sourceforge.net writes:

> Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de> writes:
>
> > Sure, but that's something different.  I didn't want a special variable
> > in my example.  The doc of `cl-progv' doesn't mention that the symbols
> > must correspond to special variables.  Do I miss something?
>
> Oh, you expect cl-progv to bind lexically?

Eh - no.  Maybe I have a wrong mental model.  I thought that the free
variable `x' in the lambda is (also) in the scope of the dynamical
binding created by `progv', and because that binding is established
inside the `let' establishing the lexical binding of `x', it would
shadow the lexical binding.

Why does the lambda still refer to the lexical binding?

FWIW I see that this example shows the same behavior:

#+begin_src emacs-lisp
(setq x 'foo)

(let ((x 0))
  (cl-letf (((symbol-value 'x) 1))
    (funcall (lambda () x))))
#+end_src
==> 0

Does a lexical binding always beat a dynamical one?


Michael.