Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?

[Miles Bader]

"Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/address@hidden> writes:
> > [Though, as I noted before, closures can be had without lexical
> > binding -- in a deep-binding implementation, for instance (aka
> > spaghetti stacks).]
> 
> But that would also change the semantics of let binding
> and hence introduce incompatibilities,

Of course, it was just an off-hand comment; I wasn't suggesting that we
change to deep-binding!

[indeed, the current implementation of dynamic binding in elisp seems
to fit very well with the extra-flexible sort of variables that emacs
uses...]

-Miles
-- 
o The existentialist, not having a pillow, goes everywhere with the book by
  Sullivan, _I am going to spit on your graves_.