Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Robert Brown <robert.brown@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: History of lexical scope in Lisp
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:23:51 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <871q8bja7c.fsf@gmail.com>
References: <874jd7z5nf.fsf@nightsong.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7504f8db4c33edb5221b67dffc7315d3";
	logging-data="2677038"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/xPfHdXnzSLamlPLL1twXR"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ifgOHJFNrbYmjTAtc6xpQCbelFY=
	sha1:j5J55x6TRg0k7HRF1G89hUNYEIM=
Bytes: 1390

Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes:

> Is it really true that Common Lisp had both lexical and dynamic scope
> in order to support older code that was written relying on dynamic
> scope and was too hard to convert?

No.  I'd say Common Lisp has both lexical and dynamic scope because both
are very useful.  For instance, the Guice dependency injection framework
for Java implements @RequestScoped settings, which are dynamically
scoped and thread local.  Guice wouldn't need that feature if Java
natively supported dynamically-scoped variables.