From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#8460: 24.0.50; Doc string of `lexical-binding' Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 08:19:39 -0700 Message-ID: References: <17D4B6B946FD4F9EB9FF1E76E746E68D@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1310747399 27232 80.91.229.12 (15 Jul 2011 16:29:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:29:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 8460@debbugs.gnu.org To: "'Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen'" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 15 18:29:51 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QhlGw-0004ha-NJ for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:29:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38622 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QhlGv-0004l1-Bk for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:29:49 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:59705) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QhkBT-00010o-2D for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 11:20:10 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QhkBR-00078O-5X for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 11:20:06 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:51230) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QhkBQ-00076z-NH for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 11:20:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QhkBP-00050n-Bi; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 11:20:03 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: "Drew Adams" Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 15:20:03 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 8460 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 8460-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B8460.131074319719250 (code B ref 8460); Fri, 15 Jul 2011 15:20:03 +0000 Original-Received: (at 8460) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Jul 2011 15:19:57 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QhkBI-00050R-Qg for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 11:19:57 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com ([141.146.126.227]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QhkBG-00050A-Gj for 8460@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 11:19:54 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet22.oracle.com (acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id p6FFJkKN012565 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 15 Jul 2011 15:19:48 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt357.oracle.com (acsmt357.oracle.com [141.146.40.157]) by acsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6FFJjYn000585 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 15 Jul 2011 15:19:46 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt106.oracle.com (abhmt106.oracle.com [141.146.116.58]) by acsmt357.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p6FFJed0006435; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:19:40 -0500 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.34.212) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 08:19:39 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AcxC+N30cj+ie5SmRlyGufTwgFeR8QACKDaA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109 X-Source-IP: acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090205.4E205A94.003F:SCFMA922111,ss=1,re=-4.000,fgs=0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 11:20:03 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:49167 Archived-At: > > I haven't seen your fix, but it could be misleading to just > > mention `eval-*' even if you remove "only". > > The current text is: > > --- > If non-nil, use lexical binding when evaluating code. > This applies to code evaluated by `eval-buffer' and `eval-region' and > other commands that call these functions, like `eval-defun' and > the like. > This variable is automatically set from the file variables of an > interpreted Lisp file read using `load'. > --- > > I'm not sure that that's much clearer than the original, actually. The problem is this: We say that it "applies to" a certain number of cases. That begs the question, "What does it _not_ apply to?" IOW, why don't we just say this? "Non-nil means use lexical binding when evaluating code." Presumably there is some good reason why we don't. And that good reason remains a mystery: in what cases does non-nil _not_ mean to use lexical binding when evaluating code? Or if there are really no such cases, and the only reason for mentioning `eval-*' in the first place was to give some examples, then make that clear. Say, in that case, "For example, ... `eval-buffer'...". Currently it is not clear (I have no idea, in fact) whether non-nil always means use lexical binding or not. And if not, I have no idea what those "not" cases are. In sum, I haven't a clue what the value does, except that at least in some cases it means use lexical binding when evaluating code. It's not about the _wording_. I can help with the wording if you provide the content. What is it that we are trying to communicate to users, exactly?