Re: Elisp flet construct

[Andy Wingo]

Hi Daniel,

On Mon 20 Jul 2009 19:53, Daniel Kraft <address@hidden> writes:

> in the %nil thread a suggestion was brought up to support the `flet'
> construct (and `flet*' as well, if we choose to do so at all, I favour)
> in Guile's upcoming elisp implementation that behaves just like a let
> for function-slot bindings, enabling dynamic scoping for them.
>
> It is no "official" elisp construct, but according to what I heard
> there, can be useful at some times (I guess the use is mainly to locally
> alter bindings of standard functions for some code executed without a
> risk of permanently messing things up).  So I don't know how you regard
> addition of "extensions"...?

Personally? I think what's out there would be the priority, but
extensions are fun too :)

> * If we do not implement flet, we can implement the function-slots
> without indirection via fluids but rather use the Guile symbol bindings
> directly.  This is for sure a simplification especially performance
> wise, but I can't say how much it really affects.  Most bindings in use
> are, I guess, variables, so we save the fluid-references only in a
> fraction of cases.

>From a Guile perspective, I would like to avoid the use of
symbol-function. It seems that the module and variable hacks we
discussed before would be sufficiently fast. I could be wrong of course.

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/