Re: Return

[Fren Zeee]

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:17 AM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> Miles Bader <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:
>>> Actually, I'm considering to disallow non-top-level defuns in
>>> lexical-scope mode, just because it's a good opportunity to introduce
>>> such "breakage" and because non-top-level defuns are bugs in 99% of
>>> the cases (in Elisp).
>>
>> I presume by "non-top-level defun" you mean "defun inside a function",
>> not "defun inside a form"...
>
> There are lots of reasons for doing a defun inside of a function.  One
> important point of Lisp is making it easy to create code
> programmatically.
>
> I don't understand the "bugs in 99% of the cases", I could hardly
> imagine any situation where a defun is used inside of a form
> unintentionally, without the interpreter/compiler barfing anyway because
> of unmatched parens and/or producing totally non-working code that is
> straightforward to figure out.
>

LOL

He wants to go back to PASCAL of Niklaus ... from one level style of C and LISP.

Franz Xe