From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jim Diamond Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Real-life examples of lexical binding in Emacs Lisp Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 20:48:45 -0300 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: <87bnh3eqiv.fsf@mbork.pl> <874mmuxyd5.fsf@gnu.org> <87k2v6wmpy.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1434498626 23747 80.91.229.3 (16 Jun 2015 23:50:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 23:50:26 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 17 01:50:26 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@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 1Z50cZ-0000s8-Bq for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 01:50:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43308 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z50cT-0005u7-Nn for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 19:50:17 -0400 Original-Path: usenet.stanford.edu!news.kjsl.com!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help Original-Lines: 32 Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="4dd0a780b6231db6df0eb032760c3d5a"; logging-data="1483"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ja843tcUGf7HgnbSoTBv8" User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:3EbaOk9rtz0ZX3JH2Z16zJ/kQsw= Original-Xref: usenet.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.help:212707 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:104991 Archived-At: On 2015-06-14 at 08:31 ADT, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote: > Marcin Borkowski writes: > >> Exactly. What I'm curious is how lexical scoping might make some tasks >> *connected to editing* easier/more natural. > Writing programs is easier and more natural with lexical scoping, IN > GENERAL! Really? Are there well-agreed-upon studies showing those things? Or are they your opinion? It strikes me that lexical scoping is easier to implement for compiled languages (that is an "off the cuff" comment from someone (me) with basic knowledge of compiler construction). But if lexical scoping is "more natural", is that because more people were "brought up" with lexically-scoped languages than dynamically-scoped languages? The first language I "learned" was lexically scoped. But the first language I used a lot was dynamically scoped. It seemed quite reasonable and natural to me at the time. A few versions of emacs ago something I was using went from dynamic scoping to lexical scoping. Working around that change was not trivial, casting suspicion on the universality of "easier". Cheers. Jim