Re: e and pi

[Stefan Monnier]

> This is my understanding: You want bindings to behave like in Common
> Lisp, and have all special variables (i.e., things that have been
> defined with defvar) to have dynamic scope (like today), and have all
> the rest have lexical bindings.  And the problem is that some variables
> (well, constants) like `e' and `pi' are likely to be used by people in
> bindings, so they'll get dynamic bindings where they don't expect it.
> Is that a fair summary?

Yes.

> (Although I don't really see how not using function arguments as dynamic
> bindings really help much, but I agree that it's confusing.)

It's only remotely related, indeed.


        Stefan