[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#66756: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Improve discussion of 'let' in Elisp Introdu
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
bug#66756: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Improve discussion of 'let' in Elisp Introduction manual |
Date: |
Sat, 18 Nov 2023 22:39:03 -0500 |
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
I think your changes are good.
> +parts a ``scope''). For historical reasons, Emacs Lisp uses a form of
> +variable binding called ``dynamic binding'' by default. However, in
> +this manual, we discuss the preferred form of binding, called
> +``lexical binding'' (if you have programmed in other languages before,
> +you're likely already familiar with how lexical binding behaves). In
> +order to use lexical binding in a program, you should add this to the
> +first line of your Emacs Lisp file:
> +
> +@example
> +;;; -*- lexical-binding: t -*-
> +@end example
> +
> +For more information about this, @pxref{Selecting Lisp Dialect, , ,
> +elisp, The Emacs Lisp Reference Manual}.
Do we want to change the default some day to lexical binding:? If so,
we should say so somewhere in this manual -- perhaps here, perhaps
elsewhere,
> +If we instead change @code{lexical-binding} to have a value of
> +@code{nil}, we will get a different result here.
"Get a different result" is vague -- it would be clearer if it said
concretely what will happen.
I suggest you show the dynamci situation in the same way you show the lexical
situation. That will help people compare the two.
--
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
- bug#66756: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Improve discussion of 'let' in Elisp Introduction manual, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/11/04
- bug#66756: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Improve discussion of 'let' in Elisp Introduction manual, Richard Stallman, 2023/11/05
- bug#66756: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Improve discussion of 'let' in Elisp Introduction manual, Richard Stallman, 2023/11/05
- bug#66756: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Improve discussion of 'let' in Elisp Introduction manual, Jim Porter, 2023/11/17
- bug#66756: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Improve discussion of 'let' in Elisp Introduction manual,
Richard Stallman <=
- bug#66756: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Improve discussion of 'let' in Elisp Introduction manual, Jim Porter, 2023/11/19
- bug#66756: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Improve discussion of 'let' in Elisp Introduction manual, Jim Porter, 2023/11/19
- bug#66756: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Improve discussion of 'let' in Elisp Introduction manual, Michael Albinus, 2023/11/19
- bug#66756: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Improve discussion of 'let' in Elisp Introduction manual, Jim Porter, 2023/11/19
- bug#66756: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Improve discussion of 'let' in Elisp Introduction manual, Jim Porter, 2023/11/19
- bug#66756: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Improve discussion of 'let' in Elisp Introduction manual, Michael Albinus, 2023/11/20
- bug#66756: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Improve discussion of 'let' in Elisp Introduction manual, Richard Stallman, 2023/11/22
- bug#66756: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Improve discussion of 'let' in Elisp Introduction manual, Jim Porter, 2023/11/23
- bug#66756: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Improve discussion of 'let' in Elisp Introduction manual, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/11/24
- bug#66756: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Improve discussion of 'let' in Elisp Introduction manual, Jim Porter, 2023/11/24