Re: Why are there two dolist?

[Lennart Borgman]

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:45 AM, David Kastrup<address@hidden> wrote:
> Lennart Borgman <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Lennart
>> Borgman<address@hidden> wrote:
>>> And shouldn't they say that you do not have to intern/declare VAR?
>>
>> - There is one definition in subr.el and one in cl-macro.el. (I think
>> I said this before.)
>>
>> - And I meant it should say that the variable is let bound inside
>> dolist, ie there is a (let ((VAR ...) inside the defmacro dolist. That
>> is not clear to from the doc string. The word "bound" there could
>> equally well mean that (setq VAR ...) was used.
>
> No.  Binding and setting a variable are fundamentally different things
> and not interchangeable.  While there is a small bit of overlap in
> current Emacs (because of its dynamic binding implementation), with
> regard to language idioms the concepts are clearly separate, and with a
> lexically binding Lisp variant (which we might get some day) the
> semantics are even more separated.


Ok, but it not pretty obvious when you got for example `boundp'. So
even if the concepts are clearly separate then the use of the names
does not seem to be that.

And that was actually what I asked about.

Hm, there is really no easy way to be correct if you have taken some
steps aside.