Mosè Giordano <[email protected]> writes: > We should make sure AUCTeX doesn't fundamentally use dynamic binding, > in order to later switch to lexical binding.
You have to pick one or the other for the equivalent of closures. I do think we have a few cases of those that would benefit from lexical binding. Should I go over them? As a first idea: dak@lola:/usr/local/tmp/auctex$ git grep '`(lambda' preview.el.in: `(lambda (process command) preview.el.in: `(lambda() (interactive "@") preview.el.in: `(lambda() (interactive) preview.el.in: `(lambda nil preview.el.in: `(lambda() (interactive) (preview-regenerate ,ov))) preview.el.in: (add-hook 'desktop-delay-hook `(lambda () preview.el.in: `(lambda(event) (interactive "e") preview.el.in: `(lambda(event) (interactive "e") preview.el.in: `(lambda(event) (interactive "e") preview.el.in: `(lambda(event) (interactive "e") preview.el.in: `(lambda (process string) preview.el.in: `(lambda (process string) preview.el.in: `(lambda () (preview-dump-state ,(current-buffer))) tex-buf.el: (file `(lambda (&rest args) tex.el: :filter `(lambda (&rest ignored) toolbar-x.el: `(lambda nil (interactive) toolbar-x.el: `(lambda nil (interactive) (popup-menu (quote ,keymap))))) -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-auctex mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex
