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: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:12:38 -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 1348063987 1035 80.91.229.3 (19 Sep 2012 14:13:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:13:07 +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 16:13:09 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 1TEL1W-0002sA-C2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:13:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38452 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEL1S-0004AS-0R for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:13:02 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:33264) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEL1M-00049t-G4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:13:00 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEL1F-0001uM-Kb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:12:56 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:45060) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEL1F-0001uI-Hg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:12:49 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEL14-0004Bj-Qe; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:12:39 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:41:30 -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:153392 Archived-At: This said, there can be good reasons to force a lexical binding, when you fear that the code might be run in a context where the variable might happen to be defvar'd. I am very skeptical of that claim. It seems to me that if your local variable is defvar'd by some other code, that is a kind of name collision and that other code should use a different name which isn't likely to collide with local variables. -- 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