On Wed 22 Jul 2009 11:11, Daniel Kraft <d...@domob.eu> writes: > And checks with the cl package's implementation of lexical-let give the > result, that an inner let does the same as if it was another > lexical-let; that is, does not revert to dynamic binding but rather sets > only the lexical value.
Interesting -- so it has to codewalk the contained expressions, replacing let on its variables with appropriate lexical constructs? > So, what are the opinions regarding lexical-let as an extension > construct? Regarding the behaviour, to me the one described above seems > to be a consequence of the implementing with unwind-protect and not > necessarily expected -- thus I suggest to implement the version I had in > mind, namely that an inner let or argument binding inside a lambda > reverts to dynamic binding for that inner scope. This seems more > consistent and reasonable to me. I'm afraid we're going to have to do whatever the existing lexical-let does, if possible. Andy -- http://wingolog.org/
