From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#44854: [PATCH] Add lexical-binding cookie to autoload files Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 17:02:52 +0200 Message-ID: <83wny9scmb.fsf@gnu.org> References: <837dqatsjd.fsf@gnu.org> <83360ytqk3.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="38690"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 44854@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca To: Stefan Kangas Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 25 16:04:43 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1khwLb-0009w6-Lk for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 16:04:43 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56434 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1khwLa-0003MF-N8 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 10:04:42 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:39066) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1khwJy-0002kV-DZ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 10:03:02 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:53361) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1khwJy-0001ml-5p for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 10:03:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1khwJy-0000UQ-2q for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 10:03:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 15:03:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 44854 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 44854-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B44854.16063165811875 (code B ref 44854); Wed, 25 Nov 2020 15:03:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 44854) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Nov 2020 15:03:01 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36674 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1khwJw-0000UB-PX for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 10:03:01 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:49046) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1khwJu-0000Tx-M1 for 44854@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 10:02:59 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:45685) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1khwJp-0001jw-1M; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 10:02:53 -0500 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1554 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1khwJn-0002s4-UD; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 10:02:52 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Stefan Kangas on Tue, 24 Nov 2020 13:35:22 -0800) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:194198 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Kangas > Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 13:35:22 -0800 > Cc: 44854@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > I guess I'm asking how is this a step on that journey. Can you > > elaborate? > > [ In the interest of full disclosure, I had a brief private discussion > with Stefan M about this. I can only speak for myself, but I will > share my clarified thinking based on his input. ] > > I believe that if we want to have lexical-binding by default, we will at > some point need to begin issuing byte-compiler warnings for files that > do not explicitly say one of "-*- lexical-binding:t -*- or > "-*- lexical-binding:nil -*-". > > This warning would need to be there for a period of time likely to be at > least as long as the time span we usually allow before removing any > obsolete feature. Probably even longer. > > Only after such a time period with the warning can we think about using > "lexical-binding:t" as the default. At that point, any library that has > not yet been converted will hopefully use "lexical-binding:nil". > > Now, the above idea would involve changing all of our own files to use > one of the above. Possibly proposing this change in this manner is > putting the horse ahead of the cart. But I was still undecided on > whether or not this was worth bringing up for general discussion on > emacs-devel for Emacs 28. See, this plan is not something that was even discussed, let alone decided upon. When discussing such plans in private email, please consider the effect of that on people who didn't participate in those discussions: they see steps being taken without the goal being clearly announced and agreed upon. I think before we make steps in this direction (as opposed to just switching more and more Lisp files to lexical-binding, where there's code that could benefit from that), we should actually discuss on emacs-devel and agree that this is our practical intention in the near future. Personally, it is not clear to me that we want to switch to lexical-binding by default in Emacs 28. And even if we are, it is entirely not clear that we need to mark all files with some value of lexical-binding as a prerequisite to doing so. > This just seemed like a small and hopefully uncontroversial step Well, you see that it isn't.