[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Lexical byte-compilation warnings cleanup
From: |
Dmitri Paduchikh |
Subject: |
Re: Lexical byte-compilation warnings cleanup |
Date: |
Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:05:07 +0600 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) |
Barry OReilly wrote:
>>> 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
IMO, this does not explain what happens actually. I would rather prefer
such variant:
Warning: Lexically bound argument shadows dynamic variable %s
--
With best regards
Dmitri Paduchikh
- Re: Lexical byte-compilation warnings cleanup, (continued)
- 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, 2013/08/21
- Re: Lexical byte-compilation warnings cleanup,
Dmitri Paduchikh <=