Re: The purpose of makunbound

[Kelly Dean <kelly@prtime.org>]

Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> Why would that be an error?
>> Because of a classic mistake with dynamic binding:
[snip]
> This problematic situation is problematic regardless of the presence of
> makunbound.

True. I was just answering your question about why makunbound would be an error. It's the same as why «set» would be an error.

>> For single-threaded code, there's no difference, but for multi-threaded,
>> there is, which you already mentioned. Why have inconsistent interpretations
>> for single vs. multi, when you can have a consistent one for both?
>
> Note that the current implementation technique for "bound/unbound" still
> works just fine with multithreading (the implementation of dynamically
> scoped "let" is more problematic but it has no particular problematic
> interaction with makunbound).
>
> So, adding multi-threading won't make much difference to this "problem".

You said the difference between global and dynamic variables is just in my head because of the interpretation I chose. So my point was that my interpretation has the advantage of being applicable to both single-threading and multi-threading. It's true that for single-threading, it's just philosophical.