Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?

[Miles Bader]

"Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/address@hidden> writes:
> And this is from someone who's a strong proponent of lexical scoping
> because he finds closures invaluable.

[Though, as I noted before, closures can be had without lexical
binding -- in a deep-binding implementation, for instance (aka
spaghetti stacks).]

-Miles
-- 
[|nurgle|]  ddt- demonic? so quake will have an evil kinda setting? one that 
            will  make every christian in the world foamm at the mouth? 
[iddt]      nurg, that's the goal