GNU bug report logs - #23781
25.0.95; read-string with HIST lexically bound

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Tino Calancha <f92capac <at> gmail.com>

Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:20:01 UTC

Severity: normal

Tags: fixed

Found in version 25.0.95

Fixed in version 25.1

Done: npostavs <at> users.sourceforge.net

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #26 received at 23781 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Noam Postavsky <npostavs <at> users.sourceforge.net>
To: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman <at> gmx.net>
Cc: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>,
 Tino Calancha <f92capac <at> gmail.com>, 23781 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Subject: Re: bug#23781: 25.0.95; read-string with HIST lexically bound
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 12:53:18 -0400
On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 6:12 AM, Stephen Berman <stephen.berman <at> gmx.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 20:26:45 -0400 Noam Postavsky <npostavs <at> users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 7:18 PM, Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com> wrote:
>>>> I think we should be a little more specific, not
>>>> just give examples, something like:
>>>>
>>>>     Note that functions which take a symbol argument (like
>>>>     ‘symbol-value’, ‘boundp’, and ‘set’) can only retrieve or modify a
>>>>     variable’s dynamic binding (i.e., the contents of its symbol’s
>>>>     value cell).
>>>
>>> Be even more specific: A Lisp symbol is a dynamic thing.
>>> It is an object.  Lexical binding has nothing to do with symbols.
>>> A given _name_ in code can sometimes be lexically bound.
>>
>> Hmm, this threatens to get a little philosophical, but that seems to
>> contradict earlier text in the same node:
>>
>>        Here is how lexical binding works.  Each binding construct
>>     defines a “lexical environment”, specifying the symbols that are
>>     bound within the construct and their local values.
>
> I think it's more a question of definition than philosophy: AFAIU using
> the word "symbols" here is strictly speaking incorrect; it should be
> "variables".

Yes, perhaps the implementation details leaked a bit too much into the
description. I think it remains the case that the name of a variable
is a symbol (as opposed to a string) though.




This bug report was last modified 8 years and 329 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.