[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: [External] : messages to *Messages* without appearing in mini-buffer

From: Drew Adams
Subject: RE: [External] : messages to *Messages* without appearing in mini-buffer?
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 17:06:09 +0000

> Best:
>   (do-some-thing)
> Second best:
>   (do-some-thing this-way)
> Not 3rd place:
>   (let ((control-behavior with-some-value))
>     (in-function) )

That's 3rd-grade "knowledge".  (Only a rough
first approximation, if you prefer.)

There's NO such "best", though convincing the
Lexical Police of this is hardly worth trying. ;-)
"Best" depends on the purpose/use.

[The same applies to side effects and state.
And to `quote' (which by itself destroys
referential transparency).  And to applicative
order evaluation.  And to...  All such "dirty",
more-difficult-to-prove/manage/manipulate, more
complicated things have their uses/advantages.]

There's are reasons that Common Lisp and Elisp
provide not only lexical binding but _also_
dynamic binding.  And the reasons are not just
hysterical raisins.  And Elisp has its own
particular reasons, as it's a Lisp for an editor
(and more).

"It is not necessary for dynamic scope to be the
only scope rule provided, just useful for it to
be available..."

"Some language designers believe that dynamic
binding should be avoided, and explicit argument
passing should be used instead..."

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>

reply via email to

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