emacs-bug-tracker
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#66756: closed (30.0.50; [PATCH] Improve discussion of 'let' in Elisp


From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: bug#66756: closed (30.0.50; [PATCH] Improve discussion of 'let' in Elisp Introduction manual)
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2024 18:42:03 +0000

Your message dated Tue, 9 Jan 2024 10:40:47 -0800
with message-id <35439fd8-09bc-106d-63f0-6e4b56001b1d@gmail.com>
and subject line Re: bug#66756: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Improve discussion of 'let' in 
Elisp Introduction manual
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #66756,
regarding 30.0.50; [PATCH] Improve discussion of 'let' in Elisp Introduction 
manual
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs@gnu.org.)


-- 
66756: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=66756
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Improve discussion of 'let' in Elisp Introduction manual Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2023 22:54:25 -0700
(Spun out from bug#66706. My previous message below.)

On 10/25/2023 8:48 PM, Jim Porter wrote:
> On 10/25/2023 6:19 PM, Jim Porter wrote:
>> I'll start with a patch here then. I think this is also a prime spot
>> to add an example or two that would actually show lexical binding in
>> action (i.e. a sample where the code would do something different
>> under dynamic binding).
>
> Here's a first attempt. I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with it (the
> digression into setting 'lexical-binding' to 't' is a bit disruptive),
> but hopefully it's an improvement. Of course, we can keep adjusting this
> further as needed.

Attachment: 0001-Introduce-let-using-lexical-binding-in-the-Lisp-Intr.patch
Description: Text document


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: bug#66756: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Improve discussion of 'let' in Elisp Introduction manual Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 10:40:47 -0800
Version: 29.2

On 12/17/2023 12:47 PM, Jim Porter wrote:
On 12/16/2023 3:10 PM, Stefan Kangas wrote:
Jim Porter <jporterbugs@gmail.com> writes:

I suggest merging it to emacs-29.  If we indeed think it's better, let's
get the improved documentation into users' hands.

Sounds good to me. I'll give people another day or two to raise any last concerns, and if there aren't any, I'll merge to the 29 branch.

I've now merged the latest revision of my patch to the release branch as d58d0fa52ff. Closing this bug.

Of course, if anyone sees any further issues, just let me know and I'll try to address them.


--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]