Re: defvar inside let-binding

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

>> Has changing the way `defvar' works in the presence of let-bindings been
>> discussed? 
>
> No.  Personally I can't see how to make it work, because by the time we
> get to defvar it's kind of too late.  Maybe we could try to change the
> let-binding so that the "saved void state" (which will be restored at
> the end of the outer let) gets changed as if the var had been defvarred
> before the let-binding.  But it sounds terribly hackish.

That was exactly what I was thinking should happen.  :-)

I mean, if you say

(let ((foo-var nil))
  (foo-function))

and `foo-function' is autoloaded -- I can't think of a single use case
where you'd want `foo-var' to be unbound afterwards.

That `foo-function' is autoloaded or a real function is something that
should (in my opinion) have no effect on what you'd end up with after
calling it.

Leaving `foo-var' unbound is what is the hack, I think.  We should
strive to end up with the same result after calling `foo-function', no
matter whether it's autoloaded or not.

> Of course, another problem is that in the case of defcustom we don't
> even detect the problem.

I'm not sure I follow you there...

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/