[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it? |
Date: |
Fri, 07 Dec 2001 10:52:24 -0500 |
> [Though, as I noted before, closures can be had without lexical
> binding -- in a deep-binding implementation, for instance (aka
> spaghetti stacks).]
But that would also change the semantics of let binding
and hence introduce incompatibilities,
Stefan
- Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Kim F. Storm, 2001/12/07
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Miles Bader, 2001/12/07
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Kim F. Storm, 2001/12/07
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Miles Bader, 2001/12/07
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Kim F. Storm, 2001/12/07
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Stefan Monnier, 2001/12/07
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Miles Bader, 2001/12/07
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?,
Stefan Monnier <=
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Miles Bader, 2001/12/07
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Miles Bader, 2001/12/07
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Kai Großjohann, 2001/12/08
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Richard Stallman, 2001/12/08
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Colin Walters, 2001/12/09
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Richard Stallman, 2001/12/10
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Sam Steingold, 2001/12/09
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Eli Zaretskii, 2001/12/09
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Richard Stallman, 2001/12/10
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Sam Steingold, 2001/12/10