* bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in lisp-interaction-mode
@ 2024-03-29 11:31 Philip Kaludercic
2024-03-30 6:57 ` Eli Zaretskii
2024-04-03 9:35 ` Mattias Engdegård
0 siblings, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Philip Kaludercic @ 2024-03-29 11:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 70068
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 113 bytes --]
The main intention here is to avoid underlining the first line in the
*scratch* buffer when flymake is enabled:
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in lisp-interaction-mode --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1130 bytes --]
From 714cba0f576566e39b7ffeb77b8f9b80bb3003ff Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 12:30:59 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in lisp-interaction-mode
* lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el (byte-compile-file): Suppress
warning in 'lisp-interaction-mode' buffers like the *scratch*
buffer.
---
lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el
index 7af568cfe34..e04df8f9ade 100644
--- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el
+++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el
@@ -2234,7 +2234,8 @@ byte-compile-file
(setq buffer-read-only nil
filename buffer-file-name))
;; Don't inherit lexical-binding from caller (bug#12938).
- (unless (local-variable-p 'lexical-binding)
+ (unless (or (local-variable-p 'lexical-binding)
+ (derived-mode-p 'lisp-interaction-mode))
(let ((byte-compile-current-buffer (current-buffer)))
(displaying-byte-compile-warnings
(byte-compile-warn-x
--
2.44.0
[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 37 bytes --]
--
Philip Kaludercic on peregrine
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in lisp-interaction-mode
2024-03-29 11:31 bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in lisp-interaction-mode Philip Kaludercic
@ 2024-03-30 6:57 ` Eli Zaretskii
2024-03-30 11:07 ` Philip Kaludercic
2024-04-03 9:35 ` Mattias Engdegård
1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2024-03-30 6:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Philip Kaludercic; +Cc: 70068
> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 11:31:49 +0000
>
> The main intention here is to avoid underlining the first line in the
> *scratch* buffer when flymake is enabled:
If this is the goal, why such a general change? Wouldn't it be better
to special-case *scratch* in Flymake instead? Making such
generalizations runs the risk of unintended consequences.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in lisp-interaction-mode
2024-03-30 6:57 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2024-03-30 11:07 ` Philip Kaludercic
2024-03-30 12:54 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Philip Kaludercic @ 2024-03-30 11:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: 70068
Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
>> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 11:31:49 +0000
>>
>> The main intention here is to avoid underlining the first line in the
>> *scratch* buffer when flymake is enabled:
>
> If this is the goal, why such a general change? Wouldn't it be better
> to special-case *scratch* in Flymake instead? Making such
> generalizations runs the risk of unintended consequences.
My thinking was that one never needs to set the variable anyway, since
`lisp-interaction-mode' sets `lexical-binding' anyway. Alternatively,
one could also modify the patch to check if `lexical-binding' is non-nil?
--
Philip Kaludercic on peregrine
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in lisp-interaction-mode
2024-03-30 11:07 ` Philip Kaludercic
@ 2024-03-30 12:54 ` Eli Zaretskii
2024-04-01 5:27 ` Stefan Monnier via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2024-03-30 12:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Philip Kaludercic; +Cc: Stefan Monnier, 70068
> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
> Cc: 70068@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 11:07:00 +0000
>
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
> >> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
> >> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 11:31:49 +0000
> >>
> >> The main intention here is to avoid underlining the first line in the
> >> *scratch* buffer when flymake is enabled:
> >
> > If this is the goal, why such a general change? Wouldn't it be better
> > to special-case *scratch* in Flymake instead? Making such
> > generalizations runs the risk of unintended consequences.
>
> My thinking was that one never needs to set the variable anyway, since
> `lisp-interaction-mode' sets `lexical-binding' anyway. Alternatively,
> one could also modify the patch to check if `lexical-binding' is non-nil?
The latter possibility would be better, I think. Stefan, WDYT?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in lisp-interaction-mode
2024-03-30 12:54 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2024-04-01 5:27 ` Stefan Monnier via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors
2024-04-03 8:52 ` Philip Kaludercic
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Monnier via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors @ 2024-04-01 5:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: Philip Kaludercic, 70068
>> My thinking was that one never needs to set the variable anyway, since
>> `lisp-interaction-mode' sets `lexical-binding' anyway. Alternatively,
>> one could also modify the patch to check if `lexical-binding' is non-nil?
>
> The latter possibility would be better, I think. Stefan, WDYT?
Testing `lexical-binding` sounds good: the purpose is to encourage people
to activate `lexical-binding`, rather than encourage them to add a magic cookie.
Stefan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in lisp-interaction-mode
2024-04-01 5:27 ` Stefan Monnier via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors
@ 2024-04-03 8:52 ` Philip Kaludercic
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Philip Kaludercic @ 2024-04-03 8:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Monnier; +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, 70068-done
Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>>> My thinking was that one never needs to set the variable anyway, since
>>> `lisp-interaction-mode' sets `lexical-binding' anyway. Alternatively,
>>> one could also modify the patch to check if `lexical-binding' is non-nil?
>>
>> The latter possibility would be better, I think. Stefan, WDYT?
>
> Testing `lexical-binding` sounds good: the purpose is to encourage people
> to activate `lexical-binding`, rather than encourage them to add a magic cookie.
OK, I have modified by patch and pushed it to master (0197db7b).
>
> Stefan
>
--
Philip Kaludercic on peregrine
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in lisp-interaction-mode
2024-03-29 11:31 bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in lisp-interaction-mode Philip Kaludercic
2024-03-30 6:57 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2024-04-03 9:35 ` Mattias Engdegård
2024-04-03 18:17 ` Philip Kaludercic
1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Mattias Engdegård @ 2024-04-03 9:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Philip Kaludercic; +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, Stefan Monnier, 70068
> - (unless (local-variable-p 'lexical-binding)
> + (unless (or (local-variable-p 'lexical-binding)
> + (null lexical-binding))
That logic doesn't make sense to me, and it clearly doesn't work so I reverted it.
(For some reason the test didn't catch it, but it's now been made more robust.)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in lisp-interaction-mode
2024-04-03 9:35 ` Mattias Engdegård
@ 2024-04-03 18:17 ` Philip Kaludercic
2024-04-03 19:07 ` Mattias Engdegård
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Philip Kaludercic @ 2024-04-03 18:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mattias Engdegård; +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, Stefan Monnier, 70068
Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard@gmail.com> writes:
>> - (unless (local-variable-p 'lexical-binding)
>> + (unless (or (local-variable-p 'lexical-binding)
>> + (null lexical-binding))
>
> That logic doesn't make sense to me, and it clearly doesn't work so I reverted it.
> (For some reason the test didn't catch it, but it's now been made more robust.)
You are right, I made a mistake; What I want to say is this:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el
index 5cff86784f0..a1194f2dc70 100644
--- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el
+++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el
@@ -2234,7 +2234,8 @@ byte-compile-file
(setq buffer-read-only nil
filename buffer-file-name))
;; Don't inherit lexical-binding from caller (bug#12938).
- (unless (local-variable-p 'lexical-binding)
+ (when (or (not (local-variable-p 'lexical-binding))
+ (null lexical-binding))
(let ((byte-compile-current-buffer (current-buffer)))
(displaying-byte-compile-warnings
(byte-compile-warn-x
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
What makes me uncertain is that you say it makes "no sense", so I want
to make sure I am not misunderstanding something completely.
--
Philip Kaludercic on peregrine
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in lisp-interaction-mode
2024-04-03 18:17 ` Philip Kaludercic
@ 2024-04-03 19:07 ` Mattias Engdegård
2024-04-06 10:14 ` Mattias Engdegård
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Mattias Engdegård @ 2024-04-03 19:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Philip Kaludercic; +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, Stefan Monnier, 70068
3 apr. 2024 kl. 20.17 skrev Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>:
> You are right, I made a mistake; What I want to say is this:
> - (unless (local-variable-p 'lexical-binding)
> + (when (or (not (local-variable-p 'lexical-binding))
> + (null lexical-binding))
Are you sure that you didn't mean
(unless (or (local-variable-p 'lexical-binding)
lexical-binding)
a.k.a.
(when (and (not (local-variable-p 'lexical-binding)
(not lexical-binding))
which may or may not make more sense? But how would either of these work, given that flymake runs a byte-compilation in a spawned Emacs and, as far as I can tell, propagates neither the buffer mode nor the lexical-binding value to that process?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in lisp-interaction-mode
2024-04-03 19:07 ` Mattias Engdegård
@ 2024-04-06 10:14 ` Mattias Engdegård
2024-04-08 7:21 ` Philip Kaludercic
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Mattias Engdegård @ 2024-04-06 10:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Philip Kaludercic; +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, Stefan Monnier, 70068
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 276 bytes --]
If we want to do something about this, here are some options.
1. Add -*-lexical-binding:t-*- to initial-scratch-message.
2. It will sort itself out eventually as lexical-binding becomes the default. Sit and wait (a few years).
3. Something like the attached hack.
[-- Attachment #2: lexbind-warning-supp.diff --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 2788 bytes --]
diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el
index 5cff86784f0..fb3278c08ab 100644
--- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el
+++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el
@@ -2149,6 +2149,8 @@ byte-write-target-file
(cons tempfile target-file))
(rename-file tempfile target-file t)))))
+(defvar bytecomp--inhibit-lexical-cookie-warning nil)
+
;;;###autoload
(defun byte-compile-file (filename &optional load)
"Compile a file of Lisp code named FILENAME into a file of byte code.
@@ -2234,7 +2236,8 @@ byte-compile-file
(setq buffer-read-only nil
filename buffer-file-name))
;; Don't inherit lexical-binding from caller (bug#12938).
- (unless (local-variable-p 'lexical-binding)
+ (unless (or (local-variable-p 'lexical-binding)
+ bytecomp--inhibit-lexical-cookie-warning)
(let ((byte-compile-current-buffer (current-buffer)))
(displaying-byte-compile-warnings
(byte-compile-warn-x
diff --git a/lisp/progmodes/elisp-mode.el b/lisp/progmodes/elisp-mode.el
index 8a713bd19a2..6bba1199aec 100644
--- a/lisp/progmodes/elisp-mode.el
+++ b/lisp/progmodes/elisp-mode.el
@@ -2169,6 +2169,8 @@ elisp-flymake-byte-compile-load-path
(dolist (path x t) (unless (stringp path)
(throw 'tag nil)))))))
+(defvar bytecomp--inhibit-lexical-cookie-warning)
+
;;;###autoload
(defun elisp-flymake-byte-compile (report-fn &rest _args)
"A Flymake backend for elisp byte compilation.
@@ -2184,7 +2186,14 @@ elisp-flymake-byte-compile
(save-restriction
(widen)
(write-region (point-min) (point-max) temp-file nil 'nomessage))
- (let* ((output-buffer (generate-new-buffer " *elisp-flymake-byte-compile*")))
+ (let* ((output-buffer (generate-new-buffer " *elisp-flymake-byte-compile*"))
+ ;; Hack: suppress warning about missing lexical cookie if the
+ ;; buffer has `lexical-binding' set, so that we don't
+ ;; complain about *scratch* buffers.
+ (warning-suppression-opt
+ (and lexical-binding
+ '("--eval"
+ "(setq bytecomp--inhibit-lexical-cookie-warning t)"))))
(setq
elisp-flymake--byte-compile-process
(make-process
@@ -2196,6 +2205,7 @@ elisp-flymake-byte-compile
;; "--eval" "(setq load-prefer-newer t)" ; for testing
,@(mapcan (lambda (path) (list "-L" path))
elisp-flymake-byte-compile-load-path)
+ ,@warning-suppression-opt
"-f" "elisp-flymake--batch-compile-for-flymake"
,temp-file)
:connection-type 'pipe
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in lisp-interaction-mode
2024-04-06 10:14 ` Mattias Engdegård
@ 2024-04-08 7:21 ` Philip Kaludercic
2024-04-08 11:41 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Philip Kaludercic @ 2024-04-08 7:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mattias Engdegård; +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, Stefan Monnier, 70068
Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard@gmail.com> writes:
> If we want to do something about this, here are some options.
>
> 1. Add -*-lexical-binding:t-*- to initial-scratch-message.
>
> 2. It will sort itself out eventually as lexical-binding becomes the default. Sit and wait (a few years).
>
> 3. Something like the attached hack.
I like the third option.
--
Philip Kaludercic on peregrine
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in lisp-interaction-mode
2024-04-08 7:21 ` Philip Kaludercic
@ 2024-04-08 11:41 ` Eli Zaretskii
2024-04-08 12:02 ` Stefan Monnier via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2024-04-08 11:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Philip Kaludercic; +Cc: mattias.engdegard, monnier, 70068
> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
> Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>, Eli Zaretskii
> <eliz@gnu.org>, 70068@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2024 07:21:43 +0000
>
> Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > If we want to do something about this, here are some options.
> >
> > 1. Add -*-lexical-binding:t-*- to initial-scratch-message.
> >
> > 2. It will sort itself out eventually as lexical-binding becomes the default. Sit and wait (a few years).
> >
> > 3. Something like the attached hack.
>
> I like the third option.
Agreed.
Stefan?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in lisp-interaction-mode
2024-04-08 11:41 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2024-04-08 12:02 ` Stefan Monnier via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors
2024-04-09 8:57 ` Mattias Engdegård
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Monnier via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors @ 2024-04-08 12:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: Philip Kaludercic, mattias.engdegard, 70068
>> > If we want to do something about this, here are some options.
>> >
>> > 1. Add -*-lexical-binding:t-*- to initial-scratch-message.
>> >
>> > 2. It will sort itself out eventually as lexical-binding becomes the
>> > default. Sit and wait (a few years).
>> >
>> > 3. Something like the attached hack.
>>
>> I like the third option.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Stefan?
I vote against 1, and I'm fine with both 2 and 3.
Stefan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in lisp-interaction-mode
2024-04-08 12:02 ` Stefan Monnier via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors
@ 2024-04-09 8:57 ` Mattias Engdegård
2024-04-09 9:51 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Mattias Engdegård @ 2024-04-09 8:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Monnier; +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, Philip Kaludercic, 70068
8 apr. 2024 kl. 14.02 skrev Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>:
>>> I like the third option.
>>
>> Agreed.
>
> I vote against 1, and I'm fine with both 2 and 3.
Looks like option 3 won. Actually I implemented option 3' which is like 3 but checks the mode instead of lexical-binding, on the grounds that a user who damages his lexical cookie by mistake wants to be reminded of it as soon as possible.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in lisp-interaction-mode
2024-04-09 8:57 ` Mattias Engdegård
@ 2024-04-09 9:51 ` Eli Zaretskii
2024-04-09 10:45 ` Mattias Engdegård
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2024-04-09 9:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mattias Engdegård; +Cc: philipk, monnier, 70068
> From: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 10:57:40 +0200
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,
> Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>,
> 70068@debbugs.gnu.org
>
> 8 apr. 2024 kl. 14.02 skrev Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>:
>
> >>> I like the third option.
> >>
> >> Agreed.
> >
> > I vote against 1, and I'm fine with both 2 and 3.
>
> Looks like option 3 won. Actually I implemented option 3' which is like 3 but checks the mode instead of lexical-binding, on the grounds that a user who damages his lexical cookie by mistake wants to be reminded of it as soon as possible.
That's not what I see in the changes you installed on master.
But if you want to check the mode, against what would you compare it?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in lisp-interaction-mode
2024-04-09 9:51 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2024-04-09 10:45 ` Mattias Engdegård
2024-04-09 11:24 ` Eli Zaretskii
2024-04-09 13:35 ` Stefan Monnier via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors
0 siblings, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Mattias Engdegård @ 2024-04-09 10:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: philipk, monnier, 70068
9 apr. 2024 kl. 11.51 skrev Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>:
>> Looks like option 3 won. Actually I implemented option 3' which is like 3 but checks the mode instead of lexical-binding, on the grounds that a user who damages his lexical cookie by mistake wants to be reminded of it as soon as possible.
>
> That's not what I see in the changes you installed on master.
Then I made a mistake, but I don't see where. The intent is to have flymake add the argument
--eval (setq bytecomp--inhibit-lexical-cookie-warning t)
if (derived-mode-p 'lisp-interaction-mode) is true, and then make the warning conditional on that variable. Doesn't it work?
What I can see is an unrelated bug in flymake: if the first line of a buffer (of an .el file) is empty, then the compiler emits a lexical cookie warning but flymake doesn't show it. Stefan, is this because there is no text to attach the warning to?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in lisp-interaction-mode
2024-04-09 10:45 ` Mattias Engdegård
@ 2024-04-09 11:24 ` Eli Zaretskii
2024-04-09 13:35 ` Stefan Monnier via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors
1 sibling, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2024-04-09 11:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mattias Engdegård; +Cc: philipk, monnier, 70068
> From: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 12:45:18 +0200
> Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca,
> philipk@posteo.net,
> 70068@debbugs.gnu.org
>
> 9 apr. 2024 kl. 11.51 skrev Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>:
>
> >> Looks like option 3 won. Actually I implemented option 3' which is like 3 but checks the mode instead of lexical-binding, on the grounds that a user who damages his lexical cookie by mistake wants to be reminded of it as soon as possible.
> >
> > That's not what I see in the changes you installed on master.
>
> Then I made a mistake, but I don't see where. The intent is to have flymake add the argument
>
> --eval (setq bytecomp--inhibit-lexical-cookie-warning t)
>
> if (derived-mode-p 'lisp-interaction-mode) is true, and then make the warning conditional on that variable. Doesn't it work?
Ah, okay, then it's my misunderstanding: I saw the
(local-variable-p 'lexical-binding) test and thought you
intended to replace that with a mode test. Apologies.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in lisp-interaction-mode
2024-04-09 10:45 ` Mattias Engdegård
2024-04-09 11:24 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2024-04-09 13:35 ` Stefan Monnier via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors
2024-04-09 13:42 ` Mattias Engdegård
1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Monnier via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors @ 2024-04-09 13:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mattias Engdegård; +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, philipk, 70068
> What I can see is an unrelated bug in flymake: if the first line of a buffer
> (of an .el file) is empty, then the compiler emits a lexical cookie warning
> but flymake doesn't show it. Stefan, is this because there is no text to
> attach the warning to?
Sorry, I'm not very familiar with flymake.
Stefan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-04-09 13:42 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-03-29 11:31 bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in lisp-interaction-mode Philip Kaludercic
2024-03-30 6:57 ` Eli Zaretskii
2024-03-30 11:07 ` Philip Kaludercic
2024-03-30 12:54 ` Eli Zaretskii
2024-04-01 5:27 ` Stefan Monnier via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors
2024-04-03 8:52 ` Philip Kaludercic
2024-04-03 9:35 ` Mattias Engdegård
2024-04-03 18:17 ` Philip Kaludercic
2024-04-03 19:07 ` Mattias Engdegård
2024-04-06 10:14 ` Mattias Engdegård
2024-04-08 7:21 ` Philip Kaludercic
2024-04-08 11:41 ` Eli Zaretskii
2024-04-08 12:02 ` Stefan Monnier via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors
2024-04-09 8:57 ` Mattias Engdegård
2024-04-09 9:51 ` Eli Zaretskii
2024-04-09 10:45 ` Mattias Engdegård
2024-04-09 11:24 ` Eli Zaretskii
2024-04-09 13:35 ` Stefan Monnier via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors
2024-04-09 13:42 ` Mattias Engdegård
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).