<DXanatos>taylanub, doesn't dynamic scope sort of ruin the idea of hygienic macros like that? <ijp>first off, emacs has (optional) lexical scoping, which is becoming more common <ijp>now, if you have a hygienic macro written in scheme, then it will remain so even if you used it in elisp <ijp>the identifiers don't capture, and aren't captured, and they use the scoping rules of the language they were written in <ijp>a hygienic macro written in elisp, used in scheme might be trickier <ijp>but since elisp variables are parameters, which are in turn lexically scoped, I don't see there being a problem <ijp>for hygienic elisp macros in elisp, the only problem is top level defined variables, I think <ijp>I'm not sure, but I don't think it will be a problem <ijp>we'll see soon enough ***linas_ is now known as linas
***paroneay` is now known as paroneayea
***DXanatos is now known as very_phallic
***dje is now known as Guest60518
<very_phallic>taylanub, say, for what reason is the entire dynamic environment actually needed for re-raising, all raise relies on in its dynamic environment is the exception handler right? <taylanub>very_phallic: so that the next handler can look at values in the dynamic environment, which might give a clue for the reason of the error/exception <taylanub>very_phallic: might I ask you to use a nick that won't weird people out, if you're going to spend time in here? ***very_phallic is now known as James_Zorf
***byte48_ is now known as byte48
***paroneay` is now known as paroneayea
***Fuuzetsu is now known as Guest80927
***Guest80927 is now known as Fuuzetsu
***Fuuzetsu is now known as Fuuzetsu`
***Fuuzetsu` is now known as Fuuzetsu
***petercom1and is now known as petercommand
***siel_ is now known as siel
***mario-go` is now known as mario-goulart