Re: lexbind

[paul r]

>
> Well there's the occasional desire to have other files use your
>  functions...
>
>  -miles
>
>
for sure you have never seen one of *my* functions, or you would not
believe any other file want to refer to it !
more seriously, there is this obvious case showing globaly bound
functions are required.
 On the other hand, some others functions will never be use out of
lexical scope, so the developper has to choose between :
 - manipulate symbols bound to lambda definitions as proposed above,
which is a working solution but far less pleasant to manipulate than
normaly "defun-ed" functions
 - do a regular (defun ...), which ends up being noisy.

In the current CVS, I can count more than 7600 fonctions in the "M-x
describe-function" completion buffer. A quick look at them make me
think a lot of them are not designed to work out of lexical scope, or
at least they are designed by a mode, for its own use only, and could
therefore be in the lexical scope.

In the spirit of the (lexical-let ...), a possible improvement could
be to have a (lexical-defun ...), don't you think ? It would not break
anything and would make at least one person happy, maybe more. Just an
idea, be sure I appreciate you know this topic several orders of
magnitude better than I will ever do.

-- paul