From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Should lexical-let use let in the situation lexical-binding is t ? Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 18:42:39 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20120918192807.6a426ea58372355516a2ea50@cx4a.org> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1348008165 28691 80.91.229.3 (18 Sep 2012 22:42:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:42:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: tomo@cx4a.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Sep 19 00:42:49 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 1TE6VE-0003HU-W3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:42:49 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44981 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TE6VA-0008G2-PZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 18:42:44 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58165) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TE6V8-0008Fj-1p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 18:42:42 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TE6V7-0004It-9B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 18:42:41 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:53914) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TE6V7-0004Ip-5l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 18:42:41 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TE6V5-0007zD-0M; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 18:42:39 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:44:39 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 208.118.235.10 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:153386 Archived-At: As mentioned in my reply there, the two aren't quite compatible (because (lexical-let ((tab-width 4)) foo) will be a lexical binding, whereas (let ((tab-width 4)) foo) will be a dynamic binding) Is it really a sensible thing to make a lexical binding for a variable that is normally dynamic? -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call