bug#74261: 30.0.92; Remove modeline warning for explicit uses of dynamic binding

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2025 20:05:02 -0600
> Cc: rms@gnu.org, christopher@librehacker.com, drew.adams@oracle.com, 
> 	74261@debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
> >> Cc: christopher@librehacker.com, drew.adams@oracle.com,
> >> 	74261@debbugs.gnu.org
> >> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 23:54:25 -0500
> >>
> >>   > > But I think it is useful to show this warning when person A looks at
> >>   > > person B's file.  Person A is likely to assume the file use lexical
> >>   > > binding, when just about all files do so; therefore, it is useful to
> >>   > > inform A that this file makes the unusual choice.
> >>
> >>   > That could be the case, yes.
> >>
> >>   > However, another way of looking at such situation is that if the
> >>   > author (person B) decided the file should use dynamic scoping, that's
> >>   > "good enough" for person A.
> >>
> >> I think this sentence may have changed the question unintentionally.
> >> "That's good enough for A" means "A should not object to what B
> >> decided".  In that sense, think B's addition of he file variable often
> >> _should_ be good enough for A.
> >>
> >> But the question we were discussing is not whether A has a right to
> >> object to B's decision.  It is whether A is aware of B's decision for
> >> that file.  The warning will help make A aware of it.
> >
> > What I meant was that "good enough" here means A should not be
> > bothered or made aware.
> >
> >>                                  For example, assume that person B is
> >>   > Emacs maintainers, and the file is part of Emacs.
> >>
> >> I think it will be useful to warn A that the file is set up to specify
> >> dynamic binding.
> >
> > I tried to make the point that whether it is useful depends on the
> > POV.
> 
> FWIW, I think Richard's argument here is convincing, so I'd personally
> lean towards closing this bug as wontfix.

I don't mind.