[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [External] : messages to *Messages* without appearing in mini-buffer
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
RE: [External] : messages to *Messages* without appearing in mini-buffer? |
Date: |
Fri, 12 Nov 2021 17:06:09 +0000 |
> Best:
> (do-some-thing)
> Second best:
> (do-some-thing this-way)
> Not 3rd place:
> (let ((control-behavior with-some-value))
> (in-function) )
That's 3rd-grade "knowledge". (Only a rough
first approximation, if you prefer.)
There's NO such "best", though convincing the
Lexical Police of this is hardly worth trying. ;-)
"Best" depends on the purpose/use.
[The same applies to side effects and state.
And to `quote' (which by itself destroys
referential transparency). And to applicative
order evaluation. And to... All such "dirty",
more-difficult-to-prove/manage/manipulate, more
complicated things have their uses/advantages.]
There's are reasons that Common Lisp and Elisp
provide not only lexical binding but _also_
dynamic binding. And the reasons are not just
hysterical raisins. And Elisp has its own
particular reasons, as it's a Lisp for an editor
(and more).
https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs-paper.html#SEC17
"It is not necessary for dynamic scope to be the
only scope rule provided, just useful for it to
be available..."
https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs-paper.html#SEC18
"Some language designers believe that dynamic
binding should be avoided, and explicit argument
passing should be used instead..."
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
- Re: [External] : messages to *Messages* without appearing in mini-buffer?, (continued)
- Re: [External] : messages to *Messages* without appearing in mini-buffer?, Emanuel Berg, 2021/11/11
- Re: [External] : messages to *Messages* without appearing in mini-buffer?, Michael Heerdegen, 2021/11/11
- Re: [External] : messages to *Messages* without appearing in mini-buffer?, Emanuel Berg, 2021/11/11
- Re: [External] : messages to *Messages* without appearing in mini-buffer?, Michael Heerdegen, 2021/11/11
- Re: [External] : messages to *Messages* without appearing in mini-buffer?, Michael Heerdegen, 2021/11/11
- Re: [External] : messages to *Messages* without appearing in mini-buffer?, Emanuel Berg, 2021/11/12
- Re: [External] : messages to *Messages* without appearing in mini-buffer?, Emanuel Berg, 2021/11/12
- Re: [External] : messages to *Messages* without appearing in mini-buffer?, Emanuel Berg, 2021/11/12
- Re: [External] : messages to *Messages* without appearing in mini-buffer?, Michael Heerdegen, 2021/11/12
- Re: [External] : messages to *Messages* without appearing in mini-buffer?, Emanuel Berg, 2021/11/12
- RE: [External] : messages to *Messages* without appearing in mini-buffer?,
Drew Adams <=
- Re: [External] : messages to *Messages* without appearing in mini-buffer?, Emanuel Berg, 2021/11/21
- RE: [External] : messages to *Messages* without appearing in mini-buffer?, Drew Adams, 2021/11/11
- Re: [External] : messages to *Messages* without appearing in mini-buffer?, Emanuel Berg, 2021/11/11
- RE: [External] : messages to *Messages* without appearing in mini-buffer?, Drew Adams, 2021/11/11
- Re: [External] : messages to *Messages* without appearing in mini-buffer?, Emanuel Berg, 2021/11/11
- RE: [External] : messages to *Messages* without appearing in mini-buffer?, Drew Adams, 2021/11/12