Re: Why is `C-M-x' only for top-level defuns?

[Dave Abrahams]

on Thu Jan 12 2012, "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen-AT-xemacs.org> wrote:

> Drew Adams writes:
>
>  > I already addressed that:
>  > 
>  > >> I wouldn't have a problem with `C-M-x' trying to evaluate
>  > >> and redefine it, if that's what the users asked for. That
>  > >> would in some cases raise an error (e.g. embedded `,' or `,@'),
>  > 
>  > or a variable let-bound outside, or any number of other things that depend 
> on an
>  > outer context...
>  > 
>  > >> but that's not a problem, IMO.  The user would be in control
>  > >> (it's on demand, the user positions point, etc.).
>
> Well, when I say "confusing" I have in mind situations where the let
> binding shadows something global.  Not that a big deal but like Stefan
> I'm not a fan of making these functions too smart.

In terms of surprise and consistency, I think we're far better off with
the other behavior.  I'm thinking of:

(let ((...))
   (load-library "xxx")) ; <--- defuns in here are don't see the bindings.


-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com