Timeline for What effect does eval-and-compile have on a defun-within-let?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 9, 2018 at 23:28 | answer | added | Alexander Shukaev | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 7, 2017 at 4:34 | comment | added | Drew | If some such context treats a definition or other sexp specially, as if it were "top level", then that's not documented, as far as I know. Which generally means you should not depend on it, i.e., today's behavior might well not be respected tomorrow. | |
| May 7, 2017 at 2:49 | history | edited | Basil | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Remove incorrect "top-level" description |
| May 7, 2017 at 2:47 | comment | added | Basil | @Drew Thanks for clarifying; I'll modify the question accordingly. One thing that searching through the manual did not clarify is whether the descendents of certain special forms (particularly progn) might still be considered "top-level" in some capacity, e.g. in the context of byte-compiler declarations, macro calls, etc. | |
| May 7, 2017 at 2:31 | comment | added | Drew | (emacs)Defuns and its descendant nodes come closest. Use C-s top-level in the manual to see more. A top-level sexp is just a sexp that is not enclosed in another sexp within a file or buffer (or perhaps some other scope of discourse). | |
| May 7, 2017 at 2:27 | comment | added | Basil | @Drew I think I'm missing the correct meaning of a toplevel defun - could you please explain or point me to some documentation? | |
| May 7, 2017 at 2:24 | comment | added | Drew | A defun inside a let is not a toplevel defun. | |
| May 7, 2017 at 2:24 | history | edited | Drew | edited tags | |
| May 6, 2017 at 23:22 | history | asked | Basil | CC BY-SA 3.0 |