[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lexbind ready for merge
|
From: |
Juanma Barranquero |
|
Subject: |
Re: lexbind ready for merge |
|
Date: |
Wed, 30 Mar 2011 13:35:56 +0200 |
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 06:10, Daniel Colascione
<address@hidden> wrote:
> Even if it's not particularly common, being consistent with Common Lisp and
> having fewer special cases are good things. Some people use constructs like
> this to create module-private variables (which is a bad idea, but that
> doesn't stop people doing it.)
Why a bad idea? It's a common idiom for private, persistent variables.
Juanma
- lexbind ready for merge, Stefan Monnier, 2011/03/29
- Re: lexbind ready for merge, Daniel Colascione, 2011/03/29
- Re: lexbind ready for merge, Stefan Monnier, 2011/03/29
- Re: lexbind ready for merge, Daniel Colascione, 2011/03/30
- Re: lexbind ready for merge,
Juanma Barranquero <=
- lexbind: how to replace lexical-let approach to hide secrets (was: lexbind ready for merge), Ted Zlatanov, 2011/03/30
- Re: lexbind: how to replace lexical-let approach to hide secrets, Stefan Monnier, 2011/03/30
- Re: lexbind: how to replace lexical-let approach to hide secrets, David Kastrup, 2011/03/30
- Re: lexbind: how to replace lexical-let approach to hide secrets, Daniel Colascione, 2011/03/30
- Re: lexbind: how to replace lexical-let approach to hide secrets, Ted Zlatanov, 2011/03/31
- Re: lexbind: how to replace lexical-let approach to hide secrets, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2011/03/31
- Re: lexbind ready for merge, Daniel Colascione, 2011/03/30
- Re: lexbind ready for merge, Juanma Barranquero, 2011/03/30
- Re: lexbind ready for merge, Stefan Monnier, 2011/03/30
Re: lexbind ready for merge, Tassilo Horn, 2011/03/30