[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lexical mumblings
From: |
Kai Großjohann |
Subject: |
Re: lexical mumblings |
Date: |
Fri, 19 Oct 2001 22:55:37 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/21.1.50 |
Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
> I am not interested in changing Emacs Lisp to be lexically scoped. It
> would be a major incompatible change.
But the suggestions so far show how it can be done with a minimum
amount of incompatibility. And for the files where even that is not
enough, the suggestion was to make it as simple as putting (require
'dynamic) or something like this into the *.el file to achieve the old
semantics. This would allow for gradual migration to the new
semantics.
> We want to make Emacs support Scheme, and one byproduct of that will
> be the availability of lexical scoping. But the Emacs Lisp language
> will always use dynamic scope.
Lexical scoping could be a first step for moving Emacs Lisp toward
Scheme.
I think having closures (and I think the proposals gave closures as a
by-product) would be very nifty.
kai
--
GNU/Linux provides a nice `poweroff' command, but where is `poweron'?
- lexical mumblings, Miles Bader, 2001/10/18
- Re: lexical mumblings, Gerd Moellmann, 2001/10/19
- Re: lexical mumblings, Andrew Innes, 2001/10/19
- Re: lexical mumblings, Richard Stallman, 2001/10/19
- Re: lexical mumblings,
Kai Großjohann <=
- Re: lexical mumblings, Miles Bader, 2001/10/19
- Re: lexical mumblings, Richard Stallman, 2001/10/21
- Re: lexical mumblings, Miles Bader, 2001/10/24
- Re: lexical mumblings, Richard Stallman, 2001/10/25
- Re: lexical mumblings, Miles Bader, 2001/10/25
- Re: lexical mumblings, Stefan Monnier, 2001/10/26
- Re: lexical mumblings, Miles Bader, 2001/10/26
- Re: lexical mumblings, Miles Bader, 2001/10/27
- Re: lexical mumblings, Andrew Innes, 2001/10/29