From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: lexical-binding is turned on in more use cases Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 22:11:49 -0400 Message-ID: References: <83k13ubv3g.fsf@gnu.org> <83imjebsrh.fsf@gnu.org> <20200308193048.GB4832@ACM> <20200310191328.GB5046@ACM> <87lfo7q5e3.fsf@web.de> <20200310215334.GG5046@ACM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/x-markdown; coding=UTF-8 Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="97894"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Michael Heerdegen , Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 11 03:13:34 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 1jBqsI-000PM9-Lb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 03:13:34 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42758 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jBqsH-0002Ub-NZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 22:13:33 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60185) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jBqqi-0001pi-DL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 22:11:57 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jBqqh-0004H4-67 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 22:11:55 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:64980) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jBqqe-0004Cp-Ug; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 22:11:53 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1E39A44F244; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 22:11:52 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 78D5044F23D; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 22:11:50 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1583892710; bh=Wx6ufF/fkez32Jf7RdCT8DOTE2VTFw/tTn7aPwXKZ20=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=JkBlnJdiOS3duk2CEz5N1T/go6N0NMKuy4DO4uom1qmuAN22C86+4AP3N/E7E/0SY N056MY/SVOnZmMQ4Ew5NVvgE3IguQdHVIzoaGvaEdUr6o1EgAEAtZeTuAES1qz2jnI jo9N3gjKiHE33BFEUvuSgrEls+exXNfTJ9g8IRtlS+bTNYky3v9tSBzcOc5Phhv1kd VWRJxJSAYpdOaUNYribEnxi6KOcSD6LHxIPAQA9dOtCnxOIQ9jbZYHNFiVqQyMep+h 1h7inbAXafLBb8YmETCdxjn2GCwXCelZYM7sWa+WNe4Tr3CSIV6LN4/unq1o1zjPSh zOnvWVHFsybRA== Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [216.154.50.221]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 003BE12029A; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 22:11:49 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20200310215334.GG5046@ACM> (Alan Mackenzie's message of "Tue, 10 Mar 2020 21:53:34 +0000") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 132.204.25.50 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:245469 Archived-At: > And I'm angry that such a far reaching change was pushed through without > open discussion beforehand on emacs-devel. Alan, I understand you're angry. But this change only affects `M-:`. Nothing else. With such a confined impact, it can't qualify for "far reaching", really. So please get back on earth and discuss this without that drama which undermines your arguments. BTW, your example use of `M-:` also fails in Emacs-26 if you happen to use it from a buffer where `lexical-binding` was set to t. Now, this is rather unlikely to happen in CC-mode buffers, but for code which is used in Elisp-mode buffers, this current-buffer-dependent behavior was sometimes surprising as well. > offered to code it up. Would you find this a good solution? I already answered this part. Stefan