Subject: bug#68075: 30.0.50; New special form `handler-bind`

From: Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2024 23:56:17 -0500

>> >> So, IIUC, reading that text makes you feel unsure, but you don't really
>> >> know what you're unsure of?
>> >
>> > Oh, but I do: the two references to "dynamic", including one to
>> > "dynamic binding" seem to indicate quite unequivocally that "dynamic
>> > binding" vs "lexical binding" could be involved.
>>
>> Yes, it is involved: statically scoped vars are not affected, while
>> dynamically scoped vars are affected, which is why the text says
>> "dynamic".
>
> Ah, so lexical binding _is_ relevant to this, in the sense that
> lexically-bound variables are _not_ affected!

Right, it's relevant to the extent that it's ... not relevant :-)

> Then please say that, maybe in parentheses or as a footnote.

OK.  [ Tho I feel it is kind of silly, since as soon as you consider
actual examples, it should become obvious that it has to be the case.  ]

> And please don't use "statically scoped",

I use it in email messages, because I consider it to be the better term,
from a technical point of view.  But indeed, I don't use it in the docs,
because it's too late to fix it there.

>> Sadly, I still fail to grasp what kind of change to the wording could
>> address the problem because I still don't really understand the problem.
>> Maybe you could try to rewrite that bit in a way that you find more
>> clear (or if there's still some part of the behavior over which you have
>> doubts, then I'd be happily to try and explain it further).
>
> I hope now it is more clear.

Kind of.  I still don't understand how/why it helps you, but at least you
say it does, which I guess is good enough.

        Stefan