From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: lexical-binding is turned on in more use cases Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:16:30 +0000 Message-ID: <20200310201630.GD5046@ACM> References: <83k13ubv3g.fsf@gnu.org> <83imjebsrh.fsf@gnu.org> <20200308193048.GB4832@ACM> <20200310191328.GB5046@ACM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="19423"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Andrea Corallo Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 10 21:18:14 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1jBlKQ-0004tx-NF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 21:18:14 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39738 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jBlKO-0008H2-64 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 16:18:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:49728) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jBlIs-00071g-67 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 16:16:39 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jBlIp-0007l2-GQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 16:16:38 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:16277 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jBlIp-0007hT-5X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 16:16:35 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 4321 invoked by uid 3782); 10 Mar 2020 20:16:34 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p4FE1593B.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.225.89.59]) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 21:16:30 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 5154 invoked by uid 1000); 10 Mar 2020 20:16:30 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:245448 Archived-At: Hello, Andrea. On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 19:49:55 +0000, Andrea Corallo wrote: > Alan Mackenzie writes: > > What specific real problem does forcing M-: to use lexical binding > > solve? > My 2 cents are that it solves the problem of consistency if we assume > lexical binding is going to be the default for the future. What problem of consistency? > Indeed to become default it has to start somewhere. So, you would presumably agree with me, you know of no specific problem that lexical binding in M-: will solve. It causes breakage. But you think it's a good idea, anyway? I believe people who say lexical binding is a good idea, even though I can't see any benefit myself. But there are places where lexical binding is not a good thing, and M-: is one of these, in my view. > Regards > Andrea > -- > akrl@sdf.org -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).