Re: "Bringing GNU Emacs to Native Code" at the European Lisp Symposium

[Stefan Monnier]

> Perhaps you should define what "the dynamically scoped dialect of
> Elisp" entails, then.  Because AFAIU the ELisp manual says that
> dynamic bindings have dynamic scope.  It's easy to interpret that to
> mean that the above two terms have the same practical meaning in
> Emacs.

They do have the same meaning.  The difference is in what you apply it
to: a specific binding, or a language dialect.

Maybe we should stop talking about our language dialects being either
"dynamically scoped" or "lexically scoped" because it's reductive and
just talk about Elisp/d (the dialect where all bindings are dynamically
scoped by default, except those using `lexical-let`) and Elisp/l (the
dialect where all bindings are lexically scoped by default except those
applied to vars that have been declared as dynamically scoped)?


        Stefan