[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: lexbind

From: Stephen J. Turnbull
Subject: Re: lexbind
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:58:00 +0900

Miles Bader writes:

 > "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:
 > >  > In the spirit of the (lexical-let ...), a possible improvement could
 > >  > be to have a (lexical-defun ...),
 > >
 > > What improvement is this over
 > >
 > >     (require 'cl-macs)
 > >     (flet ((...)))
 > >
 > > I guess it requires two less levels of parentheses, and one less level
 > > of indentation.  Anything else?
 > Well, practically speaking, a slight problem is that it doesn't work
 > with cl's implementation of flet (which besides being very ugly, doesn't
 > actually implement lexical binding anyway).

Sorry, I meant `labels', which does claim to do so.

Remember, the OP already mentioned `labels'.  I'm not asking that we
keep the cl-macs implementation (although the `labels' implementation
isn't all that ugly, IMO), just why use a different name?  Is there a
difference in behavior intended?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]