in the %nil thread a suggestion was brought up to support the `flet'
construct (and `flet*' as well, if we choose to do so at all, I favour)
in Guile's upcoming elisp implementation that behaves just like a let
for function-slot bindings, enabling dynamic scoping for them.
It is no "official" elisp construct, but according to what I heard
there, can be useful at some times (I guess the use is mainly to locally
alter bindings of standard functions for some code executed without a
risk of permanently messing things up). So I don't know how you regard
addition of "extensions"...?
Personally? I think what's out there would be the priority, but
extensions are fun too :)
* If we do not implement flet, we can implement the function-slots
without indirection via fluids but rather use the Guile symbol bindings
directly. This is for sure a simplification especially performance
wise, but I can't say how much it really affects. Most bindings in use
are, I guess, variables, so we save the fluid-references only in a
fraction of cases.
From a Guile perspective, I would like to avoid the use of
symbol-function. It seems that the module and variable hacks we
discussed before would be sufficiently fast. I could be wrong of course.