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: jit-lock simplification? Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:43:47 -0400 Message-ID: References: <85u03bj3km.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1158158655 24802 80.91.229.2 (13 Sep 2006 14:44:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:44:15 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, "Kim F. Storm" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Sep 13 16:44:12 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GNVyA-0005Ks-5p for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:44:07 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GNVy9-0004EI-L6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:44:05 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GNVxx-0004Cl-0C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:43:53 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GNVxu-00048X-Me for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:43:52 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GNVxu-00048U-IM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:43:50 -0400 Original-Received: from [209.226.175.110] (helo=tomts43-srv.bellnexxia.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1GNVzc-0007Du-FN; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:45:36 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([70.55.143.90]) by tomts43-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.13 201-253-122-130-113-20050324) with ESMTP id <20060913144347.PTRA19825.tomts43-srv.bellnexxia.net@localhost>; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:43:47 -0400 Original-Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 3BB3D9022; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:43:47 -0400 (EDT) Original-To: David Kastrup In-Reply-To: <85u03bj3km.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> (David Kastrup's message of "Wed\, 13 Sep 2006 15\:31\:21 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) 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:59773 Archived-At: >>>>> "David" == David Kastrup writes: > Stefan Monnier writes: >>> I was debugging a timer problem, and noticed some very odd lambda >>> forms in the timer-list. It turns out to be the lambda generated by >>> the jit-lock code below. >> >>> Wouldn't it work just as well with the following patch? >> >> I see no reason why it shouldn't work as well. >> I just find it less elegant ;-) > Disagree. If `run-with-timer' has the possibility of passing values, > that should be preferred over `lexical-let'. My opinion obviously differs. More specifically, I consider this ability to pass extra values to be nothing but a hack to work around the lack of lexical scoping in plain elisp. Luckily, CL does provide us with lexical scoping, and there's even hope that some future Emacs will support lexical scoping natively. But really, this is all a matter of taste. If you guys want to change my code, go for it. Stefan