Hi Daniel, On Mon 20 Jul 2009 19:53, Daniel Kraft <d...@domob.eu> writes:
> 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. Andy -- http://wingolog.org/
