Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?

[Miles Bader]

address@hidden (Kim F. Storm) writes:
> Still, I don't see why your arguments justify changing the semantics
> of `let' (with all the derived changes) rather than introducing a new
> `llet' for lexical binding.

This comes down to personal opinion, I think -- I think your suggestion
is ugly, and I don't want to write my programs that way.  You are of
course free to always use `llet' if you want, but please don't try to
make _me_ do it.

In any case, it's still necessary to have a `lexical-binding: t' mode
because of function arguments -- which will arguably benefit the most
from lexical binding, and have the fewest `issues' (do you know of any
code that uses a function argument to bind a global variable in a
another package?!).  [Of course, I suppose you could suggest `ldefun'
&c., but I think that's simply too horrid for words, and indeed, it
would probably make the implementation _more_ complex...]

-Miles
-- 
Is it true that nothing can be known?  If so how do we know this?  -Woody Allen