Re: Return

[MON KEY <monkey@sandpframing.com>]

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen@xemacs.org> wrote:
> MON KEY writes:
>
> No, it won't.  However, I must say (as a maintainer) that use of
> lambdas often imposes extra work on debuggers.  I almost always give
> lambdas a nickname when I'm reading code that uses them, unless
> they're simply implementing partial evaluation.

I'm sorry, but it isn't clear, for which language?

> Proposing a non-Lispy language wasn't my intention at all.
>

OK, great!

>  > your example dance around what happens around defun/defmacro/lambda at
>  > compile time in any lexically scoped implementation of
>  > <substitute your non-interpreted lexically scoped modern lispy
>  > dialect of choice here>?
>
> I'm not sure what you think happens there.

The question is (apropos the above) when will what happen where? ;-)

> All that defun ever does (that matters to this discussion) is create a
> function object and assign a name (a symbol) to it.

AFAIK the discussion is still re return/return-from/block and presumably by
proxy go/tagbody etc. with the ostensible lexbind sprinkled on top.

>
> compiled code, which is verboten) change depending on whether the
> compiled code object was defined directly as a lambda expression, or
> via defun.  If you know differently, I'd rather learn than teach. :-)
>

Thank you for taking the time to communicate your knowledge.

I am curious to learn how you understand all of what you say re lexcial scoping
to jibe with lambda, closures, and macroexpansion at compile time, and more
particularly with consideration as to why Common Lisp's `lambda-lists-keywords'
contains an &environment and &whole?

>
> Frankly, I don't see any such general acknowledgement in the general
> Emacs community.
>

Most likely those who might otherwise caucus more vocally have left
with a whimper.

--
/s_P\