[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A generalization of `thunk-let' (was: `thunk-let'?)
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: A generalization of `thunk-let' (was: `thunk-let'?) |
Date: |
Sat, 09 Dec 2017 16:59:47 -0500 |
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> Say, you write a user interface, and it includes some toggle commands.
> When one of these toggle commands is called, the code will probably need
> to recompute some variables to adopt their bindings to the new set of
> options.
Why design this to work on let bindings
rather than on top-level buffer-local bindings?
Wouldn't the latter be most convenient for this sort of thing?
--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.
- A generalization of `thunk-let' (was: `thunk-let'?), Michael Heerdegen, 2017/12/08
- Re: A generalization of `thunk-let', Stefan Monnier, 2017/12/08
- Re: A generalization of `thunk-let', Michael Heerdegen, 2017/12/09
- Re: A generalization of `thunk-let', Stefan Monnier, 2017/12/09
- Re: A generalization of `thunk-let', John Wiegley, 2017/12/10
- Re: A generalization of `thunk-let', Michael Heerdegen, 2017/12/12
- Re: A generalization of `thunk-let', Michael Heerdegen, 2017/12/13
- Re: A generalization of `thunk-let', Stefan Monnier, 2017/12/13
- Re: A generalization of `thunk-let', Michael Heerdegen, 2017/12/13
Re: A generalization of `thunk-let' (was: `thunk-let'?),
Richard Stallman <=