From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: e and pi Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:30:24 +0200 Message-ID: References: <8739t9xpt2.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <874odoweqm.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <8762y3onz7.fsf@stupidchicken.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1284798637 28710 80.91.229.12 (18 Sep 2010 08:30:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 08:30:37 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Chong Yidong Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 18 10:30:36 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Owsoe-00051x-C0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:30:36 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38331 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Owsod-0007vw-PQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 04:30:35 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=48091 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OwsoW-0007uW-WC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 04:30:30 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OwsoV-00009M-RM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 04:30:28 -0400 Original-Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]:55021) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OwsoV-00009H-NT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 04:30:27 -0400 Original-Received: from ceviche.home (vpn-132-204-232-22.acd.umontreal.ca [132.204.232.22]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o8I8UOlh029663; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 04:30:25 -0400 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 101876623B; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:30:24 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <8762y3onz7.fsf@stupidchicken.com> (Chong Yidong's message of "Fri, 17 Sep 2010 21:10:52 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV3625=0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:130379 Archived-At: >>> This doesn't sound right---it means that people will have to make sure >>> their function args do not coincide with any defvar, defined anywhere. >>> It won't just be "e" and "pi" causing problems. Someone might write >> >>> (defun froob (argv) >>> (lambda (f) (cons f argv))) >> >>> and have that fail, because "argv" is a defvar defined in startup.el. >> >> Exactly: hence the new warning. > This sounds fragile. That's been used for ages in Common-Lisp. And it's the only reasonable way to convert Elisp packages from dynamic-scoping to static-scoping without having to change all `let' to something else (like lexical-let). > If function argument names are the problem, why not just give them > static scope, overriding any existing dynamic bindings? While it's > idiomatic elisp to use `let' to bind dynamic variables, AFAICT no one > uses function arguments to do the same. No, the issue is: does (let ((foo bar)) ...) bind `foo' lexically or dynamically? -- Stefan