Whoa. I've just had a chance to look at this lexical scoping business. This is a major change, and needs a vigorous discussion. I'm not convinced that the benefits outweigh the costs.

All local variables in our JS are now mangled by having a gensym-style suffix added to them. This considerably degrades the readability of the JS. One of the PS design goals has always been to balance nice abstractions at the source level with readability, ease of debugging, and efficiency in the generated code. This is a must-have because PS is not a compiler where you can just forget about the object code; those of us using PS on real projects have our hands immersed in the generated JS every day. I spend a great deal of time in Firebug, debugging and tracing and testing our code in the browser, and anything that degrades readability is a real drag.

Against that cost, what is the benefit? I agree that it is a cool hack that gets lexical scoping into PS without resorting to nasty things like try blocks or nested lambdas. But I don't think that's a sufficient argument for putting it into PS. What's the practical benefit? Has anyone expressed a need for this feature? We've written many thousands of lines of PS code and not run into a need for it that I can recall.

One option that won't work for us is to replace all usages of LET with VAR. A lot of our code is written in a subset of CL that is also emitted as PS. We can't throw out LET from that code. I suppose I could redefine PS's LET to just prepend a bunch of VAR statements to the block. It would be an unfortunate workaround, though.

I'm not saying I'm adamantly opposed to this change, just that it's a major one that has some drawbacks. I think it ought to be discussed and debated. The pros and cons are not all obvious, and need to be flushed out.

I'll post separately about a bug that seems to have been introduced. If that bug (and a few others) can be fixed, I'm willing to give this latest PS a try for a few weeks, as long as there's an alternative (short of regressing to an old version) to fall back on.

Dan

This is a major change. I think there needs to be a vigorous discussion about it. I'm not at all convinced that the benefits outweigh the costs, and

mangling, debugging, readability
obfuscation/minification

On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Vladimir Sedach <vsedach@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

I just pushed a patch into the repository that may break existing
code. Here is the patch description:

Implemented LET and LET* by variable renaming, which provides the
correct scoping semantics, and simplifies both the producing and the
produced code.

Removed the "." and "[]" name-mangling conventions from
symbol-to-js-string. Any code that uses symbols such as "foo.bar[baz]"
will now issue a warning, and needs to be rewritten to use standard
Lisp accessors. This is needed for variable renaming to work, and is
an extension of the patch that eliminated the ".method" method-calling
convention.

Thanks to Daniel Gackle and Dough Hoyte for opening my eyes to this
technique, which was right in front of me all along.

This is a win-win situation for everyone involved (yes, even if it
breaks your code, think of it as an opportunity for refactoring).

With this patch Parenscript is finally rid of the evil symbol-abuse
conventions, which IMO is the only thing from the original design of
Parenscript that can in retrospect be called a mistake.

Let me know what you guys think.

Thank you,
Vladimir

_______________________________________________
parenscript-devel mailing list
parenscript-devel@common-lisp.net
http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel