From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tomas Hlavaty Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: thunk.el: Document that thunk-force == funcall? Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 09:01:19 +0100 Message-ID: <87ima3w0ts.fsf@logand.com> References: <871rgs3tdx.fsf@web.de> <874klnnc6t.fsf@logand.com> <87o8jv3mue.fsf@web.de> <87y2izlusu.fsf@logand.com> <87ima33d62.fsf@web.de> <87lfezwqow.fsf@logand.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="13821"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 18 09:02:46 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 1kfIQP-0003Up-8m for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 09:02:45 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42258 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kfIQO-0008Ep-AR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 03:02:44 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:44470) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kfIPD-0007ix-Fe for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 03:01:31 -0500 Original-Received: from logand.com ([37.48.87.44]:41510) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kfIP7-0000vB-Ui for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 03:01:31 -0500 Original-Received: by logand.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 06F671A2B4B; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 09:01:21 +0100 (CET) X-Mailer: emacs 26.3 (via feedmail 11-beta-1 I) In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=37.48.87.44; envelope-from=tom@logand.com; helo=logand.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/11/18 03:01:22 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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:259332 Archived-At: On Tue 17 Nov 2020 at 18:52, Stefan Monnier wrote: >> (setq lexical-binding t) > > Side node: this usually doesn't do what the author thinks it does. what does it do? how to turn the *scratch* buffer to lexical binding? for the quick experiment, i evaluated this (setq lexical-binding t) in the *scratch* buffer and it did what i wanted, namely allowed me to use lexical binding by default for the purpose of the quick experiment. i do not know how to switch the *scratch* buffer to lexical binding otherwise. without that, closures did not work as i needed. normally, i write ;;; -*- lexical-binding: t -*- at the beginning of a buffer. does this do what i think it does, i.e. switch to lexical binding for the entire buffer?