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: What's up with apply-partially? Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 09:32:44 -0500 Message-ID: References: <874mrh5emp.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87zj984kz6.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1422196399 12443 80.91.229.3 (25 Jan 2015 14:33:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 14:33:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Leo Liu , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 25 15:33:19 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YFOFa-0006lg-1I for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 15:33:18 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37944 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YFOFZ-00026m-6Z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 09:33:17 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43240) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YFOFM-00025e-Mc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 09:33:05 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YFOFJ-0002tD-H5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 09:33:04 -0500 Original-Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]:44012) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YFOFJ-0002t9-Ct; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 09:33:01 -0500 Original-Received: from ceviche.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id t0PEWlBK007902; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 09:32:59 -0500 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 0E65D660FB; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 09:32:44 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87zj984kz6.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> (David Kastrup's message of "Sat, 24 Jan 2015 09:54:37 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV5197=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9393 : core <5197> : inlines <1943> : streams <1379219> : uri <1843765> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 132.204.246.22 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:181745 Archived-At: >>> I have been wondering this myself. I wonder if it was a workaround from >>> the time when lexical-binding was not activated in subr.el? >> Yes, I think this is the explanation. Feel free to change it, > Huh. Perhaps this causes different behavior depending on whether the > _use_ of apply-partially happens in a file with lexical-binding being > `nil'? No. > Or the use of the function defined using it? Neither. > After all, apply-partially was first defined when lexical binding was > not available in Emacs. That's right, but it was defined differently then. When lexical-binding appeared, it made it possible to re-implement apply-partially differently so as to avoid the problem of name-capture. That's the code in use now. At that time, subr.el was not yet using lexical-binding, so I did not just use a "normal closure". > So some uses might depend on particular > semantics in non-lexical-binding files? No. Stefan