From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dave Abrahams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: lexical-binding rationale? Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:28:53 -0500 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1326468550 12999 80.91.229.12 (13 Jan 2012 15:29:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:29:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 13 16:29:06 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Rlj3w-0004A4-LR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:29:04 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42256 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rlj3v-0001t5-Rk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:29:03 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:55747) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rlj3q-0001sz-19 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:29:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rlj3o-00050r-Sn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:28:58 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-vw0-f41.google.com ([209.85.212.41]:39209) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rlj3o-00050n-P7; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:28:56 -0500 Original-Received: by vbnl22 with SMTP id l22so1471900vbn.0 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 07:28:54 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.52.21.196 with SMTP id x4mr592878vde.20.1326468534799; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 07:28:54 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from pluto.luannocracy.com (207-172-223-249.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.static.cable.rcn.com. [207.172.223.249]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dr9sm7591413vdb.17.2012.01.13.07.28.53 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 13 Jan 2012 07:28:53 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by pluto.luannocracy.com (Postfix, from userid 501) id 6A1021F3F3D1; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:28:53 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:17:46 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/24.0.92 (darwin) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 209.85.212.41 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:147645 Archived-At: on Fri Jan 13 2012, Richard Stallman wrote: > I'm sure this has been discussed to death, so please feel free to > respond with a link, but... can anyone point me to a rationale for > dynamically altering such a fundamental language behavior on the basis > of a variable's value? > > It has to be specified somehow, so how would you suggest? Maybe it's fine the way it is. My impression was that it was going to be affected by a local variable setting in the current buffer, but IIUC it is a local variable setting in the buffer from which elisp is being read (? this isn't entirely clear=E2=80=94and it should be=E2=80=94from the documentation). If so, that gives me less of a cause for worry. My initial reaction when I heard about this was that we should have a set of functions/macros for lexical binding, e.g. (lex-let ((a b)(c d)) (body)) but then, as I say, I may have misunderstood what was happening. --=20 Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com