[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Lexical byte-compilation warnings cleanup
From: |
Barry OReilly |
Subject: |
Re: Lexical byte-compilation warnings cleanup |
Date: |
Wed, 21 Aug 2013 19:12:52 -0400 |
>> The warning seems to say opposite:
> Yup. The way I thought about it when I wrote it is that `load-path'
> is a dynamically-scoped var, not a lexical var. But indeed, here it
> will (locally) be a lexical var, so the wording is rather poor.
>
> Suggestions for better wording?
How about:
Warning: Lexically bound argument %s is already defined as dynamically bound
- RE: Lexical byte-compilation warnings cleanup, (continued)
- RE: Lexical byte-compilation warnings cleanup, Drew Adams, 2013/08/20
- Re: Lexical byte-compilation warnings cleanup, Stefan Monnier, 2013/08/20
- RE: Lexical byte-compilation warnings cleanup, Drew Adams, 2013/08/20
- Re: Lexical byte-compilation warnings cleanup, Stefan Monnier, 2013/08/20
- RE: Lexical byte-compilation warnings cleanup, Drew Adams, 2013/08/20
- RE: Lexical byte-compilation warnings cleanup, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2013/08/20
- RE: Lexical byte-compilation warnings cleanup, Drew Adams, 2013/08/20
- Re: Lexical byte-compilation warnings cleanup, Stefan Monnier, 2013/08/21
- Re: Lexical byte-compilation warnings cleanup, Dmitri Paduchikh, 2013/08/21
- Re: Lexical byte-compilation warnings cleanup, Stefan Monnier, 2013/08/21
Re: Lexical byte-compilation warnings cleanup,
Barry OReilly <=