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: Recommend lexical-binding in Coding Conventions Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 08:14:46 -0700 Message-ID: References: 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="22775"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Drew Adams , Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 21 17:16:27 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 1kVFql-0005oz-DG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 17:16:27 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33278 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kVFqk-0000zp-Bq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 11:16:26 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:34406) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kVFpE-0007if-4Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 11:14:52 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ed1-f49.google.com ([209.85.208.49]:32932) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kVFpC-0001YO-Gk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 11:14:51 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-ed1-f49.google.com with SMTP id w23so2304532edl.0 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 08:14:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2/pXQLc8bi84eo8DoEhS8TJzzIpPQmHdJhoqPo5kBuQ=; b=k6iZESouSEXw34GVQe0ENnYvSavKfGiqNdQSYfi/j1Q+LC5vI51mUeQeuvgbK4nk7H cWotUzMqMmGFSXjL5aik1JttunvAtJ9el0KcEW3+LV1ppG58lx8kFyfG28sJq3mj+l+7 mWvn3pW+nSm4Rnh6PLJUKrm63iMBwl1betmRL59lsPGiPg+XkL7+7FCCFtHrQx9AQaQs ExkTDjAtJuqzO0O38yEoceaoMMfDVteXmvbJvf3HkXP4sUHNFrug1mITLz2iLVjkedUC 1BfJkszLy6gOy2a9tI97TIBl5+vDjbSOkXNUaudtl+tpiWBRriwAqfREs3OGSEk3zgjo FMcg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532SgdG67NAbEaQQlStaDI4IkjBlF3XWbntNxP2ZkQnPIG9hgl2X zZSmCRn8aZwqKNqqtPxwVteUSqVcHCGwsJKu4kg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwzaT2cMlYOyMeZbfZiKa25aYNhzX3u6J2/NPx22bugKH6Uiiee18uneM6dYnNfRz/wCMN8DfPz071CfNbtraE= X-Received: by 2002:aa7:c259:: with SMTP id y25mr3424532edo.249.1603293289097; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 08:14:49 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from 753933720722 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 08:14:46 -0700 In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.208.49; envelope-from=stefankangas@gmail.com; helo=mail-ed1-f49.google.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/10/21 11:14:49 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] 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=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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:258231 Archived-At: Drew Adams writes: >> @item >> We recommended to enable @code{lexical-binding} in all new code, and >> to convert existing Emacs Lisp code to enable @code{lexical-binding} >> if it doesn't already. @xref{Using Lexical Binding}. Yes, that is indeed more clear. Thanks. > My suggestion is to speak only in terms of the variable, > `lexical-binding'. That suggestion is satisfied by the above edited text, right?