[parenscript-devel] What's up with let

[Daniel Gackle]

< two different macros in order not to cause issues with a special variable
when working with Parenscript from different sources >

It sounds like you're talking about something important, but I'd need to see
an example in order to get it. However, I'd like an answer to the first
question first - does anybody actually need this? - because if not, then
maybe the original let can be restored (either by removing or renaming the
new one).

Another point: the new let generates different code for variables defined
with "defvar" than "var". If the intention is to create Lispy bindings for
special variables (indicated by "defvar") then an alternative solution would
be to generate fancy code only for variables declared this way, and return
to generating plain-old-JS for variables not declared this way. That might
be a simple way to get the best of both worlds.

Daniel



On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Red Daly <reddaly at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have only limited input here.
>
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Daniel Gackle <danielgackle at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > My questions are: [...] (2) If it really is needed, can we come up
> > with an easy way to offer the user their choice of assignment semantics
> > (perhaps a special variable)?
>
> I would much prefer two different macros in order not to cause issues
> with a special variable when working with Parenscript from different
> sources.
>
>
> > Daniel
>
> Red
> _______________________________________________
> parenscript-devel mailing list
> parenscript-devel at common-lisp.net
> http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/parenscript-devel/attachments/20080809/acd0ba9c/attachment.html>