[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Return

From: Fren Zeee
Subject: Re: Return
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 07:50:48 -0800

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:17 AM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> Miles Bader <address@hidden> writes:
>> Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:
>>> Actually, I'm considering to disallow non-top-level defuns in
>>> lexical-scope mode, just because it's a good opportunity to introduce
>>> such "breakage" and because non-top-level defuns are bugs in 99% of
>>> the cases (in Elisp).
>> I presume by "non-top-level defun" you mean "defun inside a function",
>> not "defun inside a form"...
> There are lots of reasons for doing a defun inside of a function.  One
> important point of Lisp is making it easy to create code
> programmatically.
> I don't understand the "bugs in 99% of the cases", I could hardly
> imagine any situation where a defun is used inside of a form
> unintentionally, without the interpreter/compiler barfing anyway because
> of unmatched parens and/or producing totally non-working code that is
> straightforward to figure out.


He wants to go back to PASCAL of Niklaus ... from one level style of C and LISP.

Franz Xe

reply via email to

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