I guess so. These internal things are more or less white fields to me but I can assist if Mike and Aidan would agree to lead the development. Well I think the time an energy is better spent with getting lexical support in so we don't have to workaround these things. The syncing I was looking at is not a high priority on my list. It was just something I thought would be an easy thing to fix that turned into a compatibility problem. Yours -- %% Mats _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta

Happy New Year, Mats! Ar an triochadú lá de mí na Nollaig, scríobh Mats Lidell: The GNU approach is terribly designed, but they have working code and the functionality is desirable. I have most of a bytecomp.el sync, with the exception of the lexbind code, ready to be committed after about two days’ more work. I won’t get to putting that work in until about February. Once that’s done, porting over their lexbind would be a matter of a week or two weeks of hard work for someone who knows the code well. It will. While -*- lexbind: t -*- is a terrible design choice, and while we shouldn’t write our code to use it (I think using lexical-let, lexical-let*, and redefining defun* to scope its arguments lexically would be the stablest, most reliable way to use lexical scope in our code; with the implementation of lexical-let and lexical-let* moved to the byte compiler rather than staying in cl-macs.el, of course. Cf my work on #'labels.) Best, Aidan -- ‘Tramadol is further fed to cattle […] when working them […] (as draft animals) so that the animals do not get tired quickly. …’ — Angewandte Chemie, Sept 2014, describing the social context of (synthetic) tramadol having been found in Cameroon tree roots. _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta