Re: lexbind

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

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?