Re: lexbind

[Dan Nicolaescu]

Miles Bader <address@hidden> writes:

  > "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:
  > >  > In the spirit of the (lexical-let ...), a possible improvement could
  > >  > be to have a (lexical-defun ...),
  > >
  > > What improvement is this over
  > >
  > >     (require 'cl-macs)
  > >     (flet ((...)))
  > >
  > > I guess it requires two less levels of parentheses, and one less level
  > > of indentation.  Anything else?
  > 
  > Well, practically speaking, a slight problem is that it doesn't work
  > with cl's implementation of flet (which besides being very ugly, doesn't
  > actually implement lexical binding anyway).
  > 
  > Of course in conjunction with lexical binding, it would be good to have
  > a real implementation of flet.
  > 
  > Still, if you were using it for an entire file full of functions, issues
  > like the extra indentation (which is actually fairly large) and parens
  > could indeed be annoying.

Strange that nobody has asked this yet: what about performance?  I there
already  a noticeable improvement?