RE: [External] : messages to *Messages* without appearing in mini-buffer?

[Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1304 bytes --]

> Best:
>   (do-some-thing)
> Second best:
>   (do-some-thing this-way)
> Not 3rd place:
>   (let ((control-behavior with-some-value))
>     (in-function) )

That's 3rd-grade "knowledge".  (Only a rough
first approximation, if you prefer.)

There's NO such "best", though convincing the
Lexical Police of this is hardly worth trying. ;-)
"Best" depends on the purpose/use.

[The same applies to side effects and state.
And to `quote' (which by itself destroys
referential transparency).  And to applicative
order evaluation.  And to...  All such "dirty",
more-difficult-to-prove/manage/manipulate, more
complicated things have their uses/advantages.]

There's are reasons that Common Lisp and Elisp
provide not only lexical binding but _also_
dynamic binding.  And the reasons are not just
hysterical raisins.  And Elisp has its own
particular reasons, as it's a Lisp for an editor
(and more).


https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs-paper.html#SEC17

"It is not necessary for dynamic scope to be the
only scope rule provided, just useful for it to
be available..."


https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs-paper.html#SEC18

"Some language designers believe that dynamic
binding should be avoided, and explicit argument
passing should be used instead..."


[-- Attachment #2: winmail.dat --]
[-- Type: application/ms-tnef, Size: 14958 bytes --]