GNU bug report logs - #68075
30.0.50; New special form `handler-bind`

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: 68075 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#68075: 30.0.50; New special form `handler-bind`
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2024 19:35:16 +0200

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
> Cc: 68075 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2024 11:55:43 -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!  Then please say that,
maybe in parentheses or as a footnote.

And please don't use "statically scoped", because we don't use this
terminology anywhere in the ELisp manual.  We always say "lexical
scoping".

> 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.

Previous Next

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