From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail
From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: master 8f0f851: * lisp/autoarg.el: Use lexical binding.
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 02:53:16 +0200
Message-ID: <87sggnnmdf.fsf@web.de>
References: <20200419004503.26161.91884@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org>
 <20200419004504.C65772049B@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org>
 <CAAeL0SRa0k5PFeM=nxHbOC4AS7oPP-JRXG4_LdgzNQZEOCuhYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADwFkmneNET6EZLTG6p-2+vPa1SMDWbVHT0bTUGtHFn8mNb=yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <jwvwo6a1czk.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org>
 <026ef78c-3c5e-4fd8-8161-0cc2cf5771c0@default>
 <jwv4kte15lr.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> <87o8rc2w6p.fsf@web.de>
 <718e93ef-f2a7-4272-9bd9-31b482409bc8@default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202";
	logging-data="59443"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux)
To: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1Tc3kJcFiqp9GTyaeSV64nrCQYo=
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 29 02:56:50 2020
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>
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 <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>)
	id 1jTb1u-000FMg-Ql
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 02:56:50 +0200
Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37932 helo=lists1p.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
	(envelope-from <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>)
	id 1jTb1t-00082Y-NK
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 20:56:49 -0400
Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41108)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org>) id 1jTayc-0006K6-CF
 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 20:53:26 -0400
Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org>) id 1jTayb-0001Yd-Lg
 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 20:53:26 -0400
Original-Received: from ciao.gmane.io ([159.69.161.202]:36676)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org>)
 id 1jTayb-0001YN-2K
 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 20:53:25 -0400
Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92)
 (envelope-from <ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org>) id 1jTayX-000BTF-LP
 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 02:53:21 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=159.69.161.202;
 envelope-from=ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; helo=ciao.gmane.io
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/04/28 20:53:21
X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS   = Linux 3.11 and newer [fuzzy]
X-Received-From: 159.69.161.202
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-devel>,
 <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
 <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org
Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel"
 <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>
Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:248059
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/248059>

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> Why was RESULT deprecated?
>
> RESULT is good enough for Common Lisp.  Why isn't
> it good enough for Elisp?  Just curious.

See the discussion in Bug#16206.

Michael.