bug#44854: [PATCH] Add lexical-binding cookie to autoload files

[Stefan Kangas <stefan@marxist.se>]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

>> Does anyone have any objections to, or see any problems with adding the
>> lexical-binding cookie to autoload files, as in the attached patch?
>>
>> I've tested it, and it works just fine here.
>
> Ouch!
>
> "It works just fine here."  Please define "works",
> and "here".

Surely those words do not need defining.  :-)

Do you actually mean to ask how exactly I tested this?  The answer to
that is that I have used emacs with the change for a couple of hours in
my normal usage and found no issues.

> If I understand this right then yes, I object strongly.
> (It's possible I don't understand it right, however.)
[...]
> Why on earth would we assume that a user who wants to
> update her autoloads for a given user directory or
> file would necessarily want to force the code to use
> `lexical-binding'=t?

This will not force any other files to use lexical-binding.  I don't
understand what makes you think it would?  AFAIK, there is only one
thing that enables `lexical-binding' and that is if that buffer local
variable is set to t.  (You can also provide the optional LEXICAL
argument to `eval', but I don't think that applies here.)