From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Another question about lambdas Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2022 06:24:44 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87tu23kw9x.fsf@web.de> <861qp67wgm.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn6yyflc.fsf@web.de> <871qp5o05o.fsf@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="46JuCqmsUx5e+MIW" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="3079"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 12 06:25:08 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1p4bJM-0000bB-91 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 12 Dec 2022 06:25:08 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p4bJ4-0003EV-6M; Mon, 12 Dec 2022 00:24:50 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p4bJ2-0003EI-Cy for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Dec 2022 00:24:48 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.tuxteam.de ([5.199.139.25]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p4bJ0-0006wJ-Lt for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Dec 2022 00:24:47 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tuxteam.de; s=mail; h=From:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:To:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=PTW9FHfDwdGnbIszdqxu+tQhndrkorfi4NsLEgPTzkc=; b=drRR26Xl5VRI1EiOpjxJ3ChTbU KkVkF+VqxoFoPyPNKEvBF9vCgAiUfeY4n96MhcNu0bre146vcY5tvxGFvYiN0pxpj6hPp2+YmOcaa 2w1JLt3Az1miPVSHN7QjR6H9uWJITnuE4YTWhbQfakBQ0qii3vwly7Moi9r1T2ST9mi+3CdoFjz4G QLh5jd+BhKGY937gnprm15m5Fx1BtEQhFoGIiAhafJe9r0zBuTajwNU5tXLSjlLl0R1NS+bcB2LeV MsVZzyaSqli/9HrwLnVFCbTluIXYchDHy7Svu4alYyOWcA1K9ilinMz3I1OSyXdfo9way6ozLstG/ CM8I5dBw==; Original-Received: from tomas by mail.tuxteam.de with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1p4bIy-0003RE-Pk for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Dec 2022 06:24:44 +0100 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <871qp5o05o.fsf@web.de> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=5.199.139.25; envelope-from=tomas@tuxteam.de; helo=mail.tuxteam.de X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.help:141663 Archived-At: --46JuCqmsUx5e+MIW Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 02:56:03AM +0100, Michael Heerdegen wrote: > writes: >=20 > > (now let me get out of the trap: I have to admit that I didn't stop > > to think about dynamic binding). >=20 > At university I learned that lexical binding would be more intuitive to > understand, but harder to implement. I thought I was special because I > always found dynamic binding more intuitive. I thought it was because I > learned Lisp mostly by using Emacs, at a time where lexical binding was > only available using a strange thing called `lexical-let' (AFAIR you had > to require cl to use it). I think it depends on socialization. Those comning from shell languages are clearly in the dynamic camp. The most enriching experience is when you grow up with a language which makes the transformation (the Lisps and Perl come to mind: do you know others?) > But it seems that dynamic binding is the more intuitive scoping rule for > a lot of people. And a lot have their problems with lexical binding and > closures. Now it would be interesting to know whether this is a general rule or there are people more at ease with the one or the other side. When I try to explain that, one of the devices I use is the idea of "space" (static) vs. "time" (dynamic). It sticks with some people. Cheers --=20 t --46JuCqmsUx5e+MIW Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EABECAB0WIQRp53liolZD6iXhAoIFyCz1etHaRgUCY5a7HAAKCRAFyCz1etHa RnLoAJ4kLzuDnIFW4ZIT08cm75w8/NcRKgCfZa8G/eZUD7hlhJ0STZ0iiX/eBJQ= =rVb5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --46JuCqmsUx5e+MIW--