From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Kangas Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#44854: [PATCH] Add lexical-binding cookie to autoload files Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 15:53:57 -0500 Message-ID: References: <837dqatsjd.fsf@gnu.org> <83360ytqk3.fsf@gnu.org> <83wny9scmb.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="3719"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 44854@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 25 21:56:35 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 1ki1q7-0000rf-2g for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 21:56:35 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54802 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ki1q6-0008QD-3P for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 15:56:34 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51508) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ki1oc-00073w-JN for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 15:55:02 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:53956) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ki1oc-0002cB-Bj for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 15:55:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ki1oc-0000em-Ap for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 15:55:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Stefan Kangas Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 20:55:02 +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=B44854.16063376462458 (code B ref 44854); Wed, 25 Nov 2020 20:55:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 44854) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Nov 2020 20:54:06 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37269 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ki1ni-0000da-1k for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 15:54:06 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-ed1-f50.google.com ([209.85.208.50]:44333) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ki1ng-0000d6-Lh for 44854@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 15:54:05 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-ed1-f50.google.com with SMTP id l5so3982182edq.11 for <44854@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 12:54:04 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=q55TR8uOqsPodhnX3r8+Bg76/sBAPaF2iHWWJYVXi/o=; b=GcR2fTVd5q5I1hQ9zC+G/CTwkyF14SVOywkOs/xXE3Y8CEzLXMxONiuWgTrD8u/qFr peCOQ7i0EYnDAAiweQxyBVZigB+YbTrkmBshmjPdyZ9I6Pcq2YrsQM89AVOcV8s9X2rP GgKOdRPdf5KzEqzL8GdHkP+PurKoUtL8XjeVl8CbMjOay09bZom0ve2t7N6eCp8AWz5A wKscGmJfbohmy/d8orhKJ5gIdf5lbgsLDSukWp6+Y27iSFfXtelJ6JMuh3Mx02uGiCk0 EqSomRLF+2PFh8JrFVve7ru7XkVJoVe7P6Fo7lLc5ZcTtYIRMpfbTMZxOkcMZgb12YXR O6Nw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5334ykhpkcU79hiRPgkCFgcVvLYSVjX3Bv5Vxj+oQIoMI2dQIoYE 53jsGrDxHfmbnPxfG0QNDr2GGvL2fEA8uBpu2tk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx0EwoaVO+Q6HPgoPuthZti0B3DCcz6jZFwrdMTwJlLjk1JVgtIjKA+tc/aiY2TaNJ/FMV5AF+B4cQAAmZb0LY= X-Received: by 2002:a50:e443:: with SMTP id e3mr5234960edm.160.1606337638743; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 12:53:58 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from 753933720722 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 15:53:57 -0500 In-Reply-To: <83wny9scmb.fsf@gnu.org> 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:194244 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > 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 completely see your point Eli, and I understand your frustration. Private plans could indeed play a negative role if they are not agreed upon but implemented, especially when it comes to big issues such as this one. But the patch here was actually based on my impression that it was generally agreed that we should convert files to use lexical-binding. However, when you asked why I thought that these files should be converted, even though there are few immediate practical benefits, I felt that it deserved a full answer. The other "plan" is not exactly (yet) worthy of that name to be honest. Here's the story: I have learned the hard way that a discussion on emacs-devel can unfortunately very easily focus on exactly the wrong things. I guess to some extent that's just the result of the limitations of discussing via email. My intention was therefore to prepare something well-thought-out that could hopefully constructively move things forward with lexical-binding. So I asked Stefan M privately what he thought about warning when lexical-binding is not set to t. He replied that it is a bad idea, and that we should probably warn if it is not set to t or nil. I agreed, and that's pretty much it. So the only "plan" that can be said to have existed was my personal intention to bring it emacs-devel. But I hadn't yet done so: I was still mulling over the timing (before/after the relase of Emacs 28?) and more importantly its content (i.e. I was planning to write up a patch). I hope that clarifies things. It was never my intention to surprise anyone, least of all any of the maintainers. Sorry for not being more clear in my previous emails and having created confusion. > 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. OK! It sounds good to take this to emacs-devel. Let's do it.