Re: Most of Elisp lacks lexical-binding: t

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  >   E.g. we could advertise `eval` as taking a minimum
  > of 2 args so the byte-compiler would start warning about calls that
  > don't explicitly request lexical or dynamic binding (and hence fall
  > back to the default dynamic binding).

Perhaps it would be better to define a new function, perhaps
`eval-lexically', for specifying a lexical context.
If these calls need to be changed anyway, changing the function name
is no extra work.  And the changed function name will make it
easy to search for what has or has not been changed.

We also need to keep track of which calls to eval should not be
changed.  There are various ways to do that -- for instance, we could
label files that contain calls to eval when all those calls have been
checked.  Or we could define a new name, `eval-dynamically', to use in
calls which people have verified should not be changed.

Let's choose a way and start using it.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)