From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: MON KEY Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Return Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 17:55:37 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87mxojwu15.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87k4jnweng.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87d3pdwt1x.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1291762556 8728 80.91.229.12 (7 Dec 2010 22:55:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 22:55:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 07 23:55:51 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PQ6Rq-0001nn-P6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Dec 2010 23:55:51 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59530 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PQ6Rp-0000j9-Ln for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Dec 2010 17:55:49 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=49134 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PQ6Ri-0000iD-Sk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Dec 2010 17:55:43 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PQ6Rh-0005rn-FM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Dec 2010 17:55:42 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-wy0-f169.google.com ([74.125.82.169]:37535) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PQ6Rh-0005rT-A1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Dec 2010 17:55:41 -0500 Original-Received: by wyj26 with SMTP id 26so495934wyj.0 for ; Tue, 07 Dec 2010 14:55:37 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.216.184.139 with SMTP id s11mr1046042wem.13.1291762537507; Tue, 07 Dec 2010 14:55:37 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.216.70.212 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Dec 2010 14:55:37 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87d3pdwt1x.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> X-Google-Sender-Auth: -DvD0zBCey_njPi0oEzqvdJsLd0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:133521 Archived-At: On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull 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 > > > 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\