From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#30078: 27.0.50; Use lexical-binding for M-: Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 23:04:56 +0200 Message-ID: <83y3l223gn.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87h8rsaz8z.fsf@web.de> <838td32afg.fsf@gnu.org> <83373a3o0i.fsf@gnu.org> <83zi5i26bi.fsf@gnu.org> <87fu7aer0i.fsf@web.de> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1515791057 9097 195.159.176.226 (12 Jan 2018 21:04:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 21:04:17 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA, 30078@debbugs.gnu.org To: Michael Heerdegen Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 12 22:04:13 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ea6Uj-0001tb-Sx for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 22:04:10 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38862 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ea6Wj-0008CP-M3 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 16:06:13 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60900) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ea6Wd-0008C3-5n for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 16:06:08 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ea6Wa-0002WO-0m for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 16:06:07 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:46283) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ea6WZ-0002W7-TQ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 16:06:03 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ea6WX-0002Ib-Vm for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 16:06:03 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 21:06:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 30078 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 30078-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B30078.15157911288793 (code B ref 30078); Fri, 12 Jan 2018 21:06:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 30078) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Jan 2018 21:05:28 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54180 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ea6W0-0002Hl-L4 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 16:05:28 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:41473) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ea6Vy-0002HV-Hw for 30078@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 16:05:27 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ea6Vp-00020G-TZ for 30078@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 16:05:21 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:32936) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ea6Vp-0001zz-I7; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 16:05:17 -0500 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4408 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ea6Vo-0004Yq-UB; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 16:05:17 -0500 In-reply-to: <87fu7aer0i.fsf@web.de> (message from Michael Heerdegen on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 21:55:25 +0100) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:142109 Archived-At: > From: Michael Heerdegen > Cc: Stefan Monnier , 30078@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 21:55:25 +0100 > > What are we doing with scratch? > > (1) Setting global variables, defining small functions and such simple > stuff. lexical-binding doesn't make a big difference here. We need to discuss the differences whether they are big or not. > (2) Re-evaluate parts of the source code, often with small > modifications, for testing and debugging. Since more and more packages > make active use of lexical-binding, this is actually broken currently! > Re-evaluating parts of source code in scratch can currently break Emacs. You are describing a mistake. People make mistakes all the time, and will continue making mistakes whatever we do. That shouldn't be a basis for our decisions. > (3) I often posted some code examples in emacs-help which made use of > lexical-binding. People pasted it into scratch and it didn't work. > It's currently even not trivial to evaluate such examples with > lexical-binding on. Another mistake. I don't see why this should be of any importance for the decision at hand. > OTOH, there is not too much code that really relies on dynamical binding > mode. And very often, such code is just written in a bad style (missing > `defvar's etc.). That's your opinion. I happen not to share it. > In summary, I think the advantages clearly prevail. I actually didn't yet see any advantages mentioned, and the above aren't, IMO. Lexical-binding is just a feature, albeit an important one. It doesn't have to be introduced into every possible corner of Emacs, not without a good reason.