[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: table.el
From: |
Tak Ota |
Subject: |
Re: table.el |
Date: |
Sun, 02 Dec 2001 09:58:33 -0800 (PST) |
02 Dec 2001 23:35:57 +0900: Miles Bader <address@hidden> wrote:
> Note that lexical binding is _optional_ -- a source file has to have a
> file header that turns it on, like:
>
> ;;; ... -*- lexical-binding: t -*-
>
> As Kai says, variable defined via `defvar' will still be bound
> dynamically, even in a source file that uses lexical binding.
I vaguely see the mechanism now. I was first guessing the change to
be in the lisp executer but I now suppose it is rather mainly in the
lisp reader right? So it is not like changing the running mode from
dynamic binding execution mode to lexical binding execution mode which
I imagine will certainly cause a lot of backward compatibility
problems.
-Tak
- Re: Lexical bindings (was Re: table.el), (continued)
- Re: Lexical bindings (was Re: table.el), Kai Großjohann, 2001/12/02
- Re: Lexical bindings (was Re: table.el), Eli Zaretskii, 2001/12/02
- Re: Lexical bindings (was Re: table.el), Kim F. Storm, 2001/12/02
- Re: Lexical bindings (was Re: table.el), Stefan Monnier, 2001/12/02
- Re: Lexical bindings (was Re: table.el), Kim F. Storm, 2001/12/02
- Re: Lexical bindings (was Re: table.el), Miles Bader, 2001/12/02
- Re: Lexical bindings (was Re: table.el), Kim F. Storm, 2001/12/03
- Re: Lexical bindings (was Re: table.el), Miles Bader, 2001/12/03
- Re: Lexical bindings (was Re: table.el), Kim F. Storm, 2001/12/04
- Re: Lexical bindings (was Re: table.el), Miles Bader, 2001/12/03
- Re: table.el,
Tak Ota <=
- Re: table.el, Tak Ota, 2001/12/02
- Re: table.el, Miles Bader, 2001/12/02
- Re: table.el, Kai Großjohann, 2001/12/02
- Re: table.el, Tak Ota, 2001/12/02
- Re: table.el, Richard Stallman, 2001/12/03
Re: table.el, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2001/12/01
Re: table.el, Richard Stallman, 2001/12/01