From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: What's the equivalent of `boundp' for lexical variables? Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 21:36:09 +0000 Message-ID: References: <87jznv4y50.fsf@igel.home> <87bk974wih.fsf@igel.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="23710"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Andreas Schwab Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 26 22:37:14 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1rTTsw-00060J-Hh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 22:37:14 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rTTs2-0006DU-Dg; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 16:36:18 -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 1rTTrz-0006DK-RC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 16:36:15 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.muc.de ([193.149.48.3]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rTTrx-0003lP-Ua for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 16:36:15 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 23444 invoked by uid 3782); 26 Jan 2024 22:36:10 +0100 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p4fe15689.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.225.86.137]) (using STARTTLS) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 22:36:10 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 11097 invoked by uid 1000); 26 Jan 2024 21:36:09 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87bk974wih.fsf@igel.home> X-Submission-Agent: TMDA/1.3.x (Ph3nix) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de Received-SPF: pass client-ip=193.149.48.3; envelope-from=acm@muc.de; helo=mail.muc.de X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:315441 Archived-At: Hello, Andreas. On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 22:25:58 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote: > On Jan 26 2024, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > A symbol might have a lexical binding, it might not. The problem is how > > to test which one of these applies. > A lexical variable does not have a name, and a symbol cannot have a > lexical binding. Lexical variables are manipulated by their names, symbols which refer to them. Thanks for being so helpful. Maybe, just maybe, instead of insisting on being pedantically correct, you might try to give the poster information which would be useful to him. > -- > Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org > GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510 2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1 > "And now for something completely different." -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).