Re: [Emacs-diffs] trunk r117982: * ses.el (ses-calculate-cell): bind row and col dynamically to

Re: [Emacs-diffs] trunk r117982: * ses.el (ses-calculate-cell): bind row and col dynamically to

[Stefan Monnier]

> +	     (cl-progv '(row col maxrow maxcol) (list ,row (+ ,c ,mincol) ,maxrow ,maxcol)
> +	       ,@body)))))))

Why use cl-progv here?  It's *much* less efficient than a plain `let'.

> +	  (setq newval (cl-progv '(row col)
> +			   (list row col)

Same here.


        Stefan

Re: [Emacs-diffs] trunk r117982: * ses.el (ses-calculate-cell): bind row and col dynamically to

[Vincent Belaïche]

Stefan Monnier a écrit :
>> +	     (cl-progv '(row col maxrow maxcol) (list ,row (+ ,c ,mincol) ,maxrow ,maxcol)
>> +	       ,@body)))))))
>
> Why use cl-progv here?  It's *much* less efficient than a plain `let'.
>

Well, I can revert to let if you want, but I thought --- mistakenly? ---
that a 'let' combined with the lexical binding cookie would make a
lexical binding to what is in the body of let, and that there may be
some functions (e.g. ses-export-tab) using these row col maxrow and
maxcol without explicit argument passing. These function would then get
incorrect nil values from the defvar's.

Please let me know if the correct way forward would be to have a let
*AND* functions using explicit argument passing to get row, col, maxrow,
maxcol etc... Then I can do the changes accordingly.

  Vincent.




>> +	  (setq newval (cl-progv '(row col)
>> +			   (list row col)
>
> Same here.
>
>
>         Stefan
>

Re: [Emacs-diffs] trunk r117982: * ses.el (ses-calculate-cell): bind row and col dynamically to

[Stefan Monnier]

>> Why use cl-progv here?  It's *much* less efficient than a plain `let'.
> Well, I can revert to let if you want, but I thought --- mistakenly? ---
> that a 'let' combined with the lexical binding cookie would make a
> lexical binding to what is in the body of let, and that there may be
> some functions (e.g. ses-export-tab) using these row col maxrow and
> maxcol without explicit argument passing.

The normal way to get a dynamically-scoped let-binding is to do:

   (defvar ses-foo)
   ...
   (defun ses-bar (..)
     ..
     (let ((ses-foo toto))
       ...))

> These function would then get incorrect nil values from the defvar's.

The defvar does not give any value to the variable.  It only declares it
as dynamically scoped.

> Please let me know if the correct way forward would be to have a let
> *AND* functions using explicit argument passing to get row, col, maxrow,
> maxcol etc... Then I can do the changes accordingly.

Thanks.  But I already changed the code in a way that makes
row/col/maxrow/maxcol statically scoped anyway.


        Stefan