From: Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com>
To: Daniel Kraft <d@domob.eu>
Cc: Ken Raeburn <raeburn@raeburn.org>,
guile-devel <guile-devel@gnu.org>,
Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net>
Subject: Re: Elisp lexical-let
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:49:04 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m3ab2vi0qn.fsf@pobox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4A66D7BF.5060606@domob.eu> (Daniel Kraft's message of "Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:11:27 +0200")
On Wed 22 Jul 2009 11:11, Daniel Kraft <d@domob.eu> writes:
> And checks with the cl package's implementation of lexical-let give the
> result, that an inner let does the same as if it was another
> lexical-let; that is, does not revert to dynamic binding but rather sets
> only the lexical value.
Interesting -- so it has to codewalk the contained expressions,
replacing let on its variables with appropriate lexical constructs?
> So, what are the opinions regarding lexical-let as an extension
> construct? Regarding the behaviour, to me the one described above seems
> to be a consequence of the implementing with unwind-protect and not
> necessarily expected -- thus I suggest to implement the version I had in
> mind, namely that an inner let or argument binding inside a lambda
> reverts to dynamic binding for that inner scope. This seems more
> consistent and reasonable to me.
I'm afraid we're going to have to do whatever the existing lexical-let
does, if possible.
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-07-23 20:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-07-21 19:48 Elisp lexical-let Daniel Kraft
2009-07-21 21:46 ` Ken Raeburn
2009-07-22 9:11 ` Daniel Kraft
2009-07-22 13:00 ` Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
2009-07-22 19:24 ` Daniel Kraft
2009-07-23 15:24 ` Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
2009-07-23 16:13 ` Mark H Weaver
2009-07-23 20:53 ` Andy Wingo
2009-07-23 17:05 ` Daniel Kraft
2009-07-24 11:09 ` Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
2009-07-22 20:50 ` Ken Raeburn
2009-07-23 10:47 ` Daniel Kraft
2009-07-23 20:56 ` Andy Wingo
2009-07-24 6:50 ` Daniel Kraft
2009-07-23 20:49 ` Andy Wingo [this message]
2009-07-23 22:39 ` Andy Wingo
2009-07-24 7:08 ` Daniel Kraft
2009-07-24 11:42 ` Andy Wingo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m3ab2vi0qn.fsf@pobox.com \
--to=wingo@pobox.com \
--cc=d@domob.eu \
--cc=guile-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=neil@ossau.uklinux.net \
--cc=raeburn@raeburn.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).