Re: [External] : Re: Printing alist pairs to a dedicated buffur

[Emanuel Berg]

Drew Adams wrote:

> That just shows that most Elisp files provided with Emacs
> have `lexical-binding' = t.

Another approach that has been discussed is why care about the
"default" at all?

How many functions are there where this really matters?
What about we just identify those, and split them into two
pairs with explicit reference to the scope?

So instead of `let' we would have `dlet' that is always
dynamic/special (we have it already BTW), then one `let' that
is static/lexical by default but keeps dynamic/special
variables that way if they are already that way, and then one
"slet" (or "llet") which is always static/lexical?

The benefit of that would be not the least that it would be
much easier to explain what this is all about, since one
wouldn't care about exactly that, what it is "all" about,
instead one would have a bunch of functions and for each one
would have a docstring "This function works like this ...".

The other benefit would be one could drop the directives which
are ugly.

There is another example which isn't `let' where this also
matters, I don't remember it right now. But are there more
examples than that? Maybe, but not a lot!

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal