Re: e and pi

[David Kastrup]

Simon Leinen <address@hidden> writes:

> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 00:54, Chong Yidong <address@hidden> wrote:
>> What is the problem with dynamically scoping `e' and `pi'?
>
> Once programmers get used to lexical binding, they will reasonably
> assume that they can use variable names such as "e" in a LET or in a
> function/lambda parameter list without affecting outside code.
> Letting such likely-to-be-used names be dynamically scoped violates
> this assumption.  Let's try to keep the number of these pitfalls as
> low as possible.

So what's wrong with letting defconst _not_ introduce dynamic scoping,
and using it on e and pi?

> Maybe we cannot expect to get rid of "t" and "nil",

I have yet to see any code that reassigns t and nil, dynamically scoped
or not.

> but making "e" and "pi" available for lexical binding is a worthy
> goal.

Using defconst on them would appear to do that.

-- 
David Kastrup