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.devel Subject: Re: Declaring 'lexical-binding: nil' obsolete Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 19:37:06 -0700 Message-ID: References: <87r1dcw8hp.fsf@yahoo.com> <87h7e8w5vm.fsf@yahoo.com> <87wnn4uo7d.fsf@yahoo.com> 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="6709"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Stefan Monnier , Emacs developers To: Po Lu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Sep 26 04:38:43 2021 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 1mUK3u-0001dR-FS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 04:38:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39118 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mUK3s-0007HB-JX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 22:38:40 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41152) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mUK2R-0006CI-6X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 22:37:11 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pj1-f49.google.com ([209.85.216.49]:45805) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mUK2P-00026D-6c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 22:37:10 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-pj1-f49.google.com with SMTP id mv7-20020a17090b198700b0019c843e7233so10459804pjb.4 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 19:37:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pCDznkvx7AcMISEOgIoLZu+ujn6VK9U9Ljq7+EaB4OI=; b=q91TfnoofP/N1E2z/uS6qlNnh6HMpXpDoblKBezJrJK00KSGvd2808esu0PNOBcyP6 qYZF4oQOQ9/6SDhN/6quQO2kx5MMKL5YkfE0sa2JoDgAGVfwu40a0d+LMTJkS7r9+S9n N9kXDO36TBCNRO8pZ6jbtZuDK59ErG0lmXPmjoRvsKpJAVXKcmK2YvscVibGcG8OdvLb jFqyARLxGzA+mmVrO+hPixWziku2s6S9fGtMFfS/1ptOZOP3/yR5rsKzJz9HhO9/wWMe IFZHDOZLos8VCe+YOMT5hfQknMZTeCH54Krt7eax8w4W5iUIDS5FsH8x59XRYmEphSrh P64g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531sUxvQfwuvB8tW2aBKTymWRD6r4OVqUtD6rwr7AH/LtaQ7xi1o ZRymZjRfxUS070NiD+achiL15asshCeOzjF/zBI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxMLHt5h1u3c17P6JYwbGDNY/U5wKBkIrxDC9zGQ/nsoRFbfCUWgYguRIkayo3ls8W6yR/jKi3rCJ4QjilFTOc= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:5583:: with SMTP id c3mr11027573pji.133.1632623827109; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 19:37:07 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from 753933720722 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Sat, 25 Sep 2021 19:37:06 -0700 In-Reply-To: <87wnn4uo7d.fsf@yahoo.com> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.216.49; envelope-from=stefankangas@gmail.com; helo=mail-pj1-f49.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -13 X-Spam_score: -1.4 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.248, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no 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:275496 Archived-At: Po Lu writes: > Obsoletion is not discouragement! Making something obsolete puts it on > the path to removal. That's the general idea, but it doesn't bind us to any particular timetable, certainly not one where users won't have time to adapt. > Yes, but why would it need to be the subject of a byte-compiler warning? > Adding a warning to the byte compiler will only cause more confusion, > because the documentation doesn't suggest lexical binding in particular. I disagree; the warning is clear. Where the documentation is not yet updated to recommend lexical binding, it should be fixed. > But why does the NEWS entry you have proposed include: > > Third-party code will need to be changed to support > 'lexical-binding:t' to run properly on Emacs in the future. Because this is true if the plan is to change the default.