Re: the (declare special) declaration with lexical scope.

[Emanuel Berg]

Madhu wrote:

> binding it lexically elsewhere.  For example:
>
>      (let (_)
>        (defvar x)      ; Let-bindings of ‘x’ will be dynamic within this let.
>        (let ((x -99))  ; This is a dynamic binding of ‘x’.
>          (defun get-dynamic-x ()
>            x)))

You need this for the byte-compiler:

  (declare-function get-dynamic-x nil)

As for your question - that would be a dynamic let-closure and
not a lexical. Interesting. What would the implications be?

And see if you can use `dlet'.

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal