[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#66867: lexical binding?
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
bug#66867: lexical binding? |
Date: |
Thu, 02 Nov 2023 17:21:23 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) |
>>>> maybe the Oclosure code should enforce lexical-binding, if it can, or
>>>> throw an informative error in the case it can't so enforce?
>>> Stefan M, what do you think?
>> A (cl-assert lexical-binding) in something like `oclosure--lambda`
>> sounds good, yes.
> Thanks, so patches welcome.
Should it go to `emacs-29` or `master`?
Stefan
diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/oclosure.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/oclosure.el
index ae0038b45e6..c23dd5a36da 100644
--- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/oclosure.el
+++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/oclosure.el
@@ -350,6 +350,7 @@ oclosure--lambda
should be mutable.
No checking is performed."
(declare (indent 3) (debug (sexp (&rest (sexp form)) sexp def-body)))
+ (cl-assert lexical-binding) ;Can't work in dynbind dialect.
;; FIXME: Fundamentally `oclosure-lambda' should be a special form.
;; We define it here as a macro which expands to something that
;; looks like "normal code" in order to avoid backward compatibility
- bug#66867: lexical binding?, Greg Minshall, 2023/11/01
- bug#66867: lexical binding?, Michael Heerdegen, 2023/11/01
- bug#66867: lexical binding?, Greg Minshall, 2023/11/02
- bug#66867: lexical binding?, Stefan Kangas, 2023/11/02
- bug#66867: lexical binding?, Stefan Monnier, 2023/11/02
- bug#66867: lexical binding?, Stefan Kangas, 2023/11/02
- bug#66867: lexical binding?,
Stefan Monnier <=
- bug#66867: lexical binding?, Stefan Kangas, 2023/11/02
- bug#66867: lexical binding?, Stefan Monnier, 2023/11/02
- bug#66867: lexical binding?, Stefan Monnier, 2023/11/03
- bug#66867: lexical binding?, Stefan Kangas, 2023/11/03
- Message not available
- Message not available
- bug#66867: closed (Re: bug#66867: lexical binding?), Greg Minshall, 2023/11/06