From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Most of Elisp lacks lexical-binding: t Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2019 14:54:23 +0000 Message-ID: <20190202145423.GB1067@ACM> References: <15a15e1c-c44b-b978-82f0-7bbb6b1b8ff1@googlemail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="137700"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Simon Reiser Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 02 15:56:37 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gpwij-000Zl5-31 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 02 Feb 2019 15:56:37 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43207 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gpwih-0008Eu-U5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 02 Feb 2019 09:56:35 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:43167) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gpwi5-0008Ee-PR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Feb 2019 09:55:58 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gpwi4-00067o-Jb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Feb 2019 09:55:57 -0500 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:48312 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gpwi4-000678-8z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Feb 2019 09:55:56 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 29811 invoked by uid 3782); 2 Feb 2019 14:55:53 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p4FE15063.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.225.80.99]) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Sat, 02 Feb 2019 15:55:52 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 2942 invoked by uid 1000); 2 Feb 2019 14:54:23 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <15a15e1c-c44b-b978-82f0-7bbb6b1b8ff1@googlemail.com> X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.12 (Macallan) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: FreeBSD 9.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 193.149.48.1 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:232911 Archived-At: Hello, Simon. On Sat, Feb 02, 2019 at 13:35:03 +0100, Simon Reiser wrote: > Is there a reason, that out of ~1800 elisp files only 65 of them enable > lexical-bindings? Yes, indeed. Originally, Emacs Lisp only had dynamic binding, and lexical binding is a relatively recent innovation. It is work to convert files to use lexical bindings, and so far nobody has put in this work for most of the Lisp sources. But by my count there are 551 out of 1528 files in the master branch which have lexical binding enabled. That's something over a third. > AFAIK lexical-binding allows for faster byte-code to be generated. > Maybe it would be a good idea to enable it in most of them and > document those files where it cannot be enabled. My feeling is that most files could just be changed without problems, but there will be enough exceptions that it needs to be done carefully. Maybe it would be a good idea, but somebody(R) has got to step forward and volunteer to do the work. > Cheers, > Simon -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).