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 18:00:04 +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 1284825665 27474 80.91.229.12 (18 Sep 2010 16:01:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 16:01:05 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 18 18:01:03 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 1OwzqZ-0001g9-HA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:01:03 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60288 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OwzqY-0005Xf-IK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 12:01:02 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=44748 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Owzpi-0005Fs-EO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 12:00:11 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Owzph-0000oJ-Aj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 12:00:10 -0400 Original-Received: from chene.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.20]:49005) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Owzph-0000o7-84 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 12:00:09 -0400 Original-Received: from ceviche.home (vpn-132-204-232-141.acd.umontreal.ca [132.204.232.141]) by chene.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o8IG052x026938; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 12:00:05 -0400 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 5EAD36623B; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:00:04 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen's message of "Sat, 18 Sep 2010 17:01:00 +0200") 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:130421 Archived-At: > This is my understanding: You want bindings to behave like in Common > Lisp, and have all special variables (i.e., things that have been > defined with defvar) to have dynamic scope (like today), and have all > the rest have lexical bindings. And the problem is that some variables > (well, constants) like `e' and `pi' are likely to be used by people in > bindings, so they'll get dynamic bindings where they don't expect it. > Is that a fair summary? Yes. > (Although I don't really see how not using function arguments as dynamic > bindings really help much, but I agree that it's confusing.) It's only remotely related, indeed. Stefan