From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Default lexical-binding to t Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2024 21:46:25 -0400 Message-ID: References: <877c9lykpz.fsf@gmail.com> <10694ea0-f2cd-0b2c-e90e-b21291c953c4@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="23857"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: Visuwesh , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Jim Porter Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 03 02:47:24 2024 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 1t7Pi7-00065V-Vr for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 03 Nov 2024 02:47:24 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1t7PhM-0002zK-Do; Sat, 02 Nov 2024 21:46:36 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1t7PhI-0002yx-Uk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Nov 2024 21:46:33 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1t7PhG-0006AR-T5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Nov 2024 21:46:32 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E6BAA100180; Sat, 2 Nov 2024 21:46:27 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1730598387; bh=FnmRNel+jTu4zqadHs16Rz6A4+mo3EHvyS3TM0gdHRE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=aIzXakjBothkaUFiZA4Cnq0duSxHZxlTrSMUAzy2VxvfBKI0HYoZuJ0safPmQZkiV PStAxseRtKhzWOsDULEYTbWHgyO5bJZmkQNIaXjtEpAmkyxvycFIkgm5NVxIJ0gbzr 7IjGdQqTGQDhhFmQbuIREhDUFJEoQ2CI0JmeCOve82cteuXzqp8eSjNMgfWfLsjc4x S84zZGShscVUnmPLwqEwa45At4Sq7J7wmFs4MK6DyuuSSUCUe/zDiubXIukdrzqlnN m6ZtFRBpvWx/+J/vWv1q4cXQEQZ1Zd2ypquUcDGcPk8GkW8WmtsPf27Ei+OMsQyyNl TWzI2Lz8YiLRA== Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 47E15100043; Sat, 2 Nov 2024 21:46:27 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from pastel (104-195-225-43.cpe.teksavvy.com [104.195.225.43]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 180151200EB; Sat, 2 Nov 2024 21:46:27 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <10694ea0-f2cd-0b2c-e90e-b21291c953c4@gmail.com> (Jim Porter's message of "Sat, 2 Nov 2024 13:42:24 -0700") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:325037 Archived-At: > As for warning about a missing 'lexical-binding' cookie, maybe we could > check the "Package-Requires" metadata and warn if the "emacs" requirement > is less than 31, but there's no 'lexical-binding' cookie? AFAIK we're talking about warning when *loading* `.el` files. This should almost never happen for files installed via `package.el` (which always compiles the files). Also, I'm not fond of such "fanciness". I think it would be complicated to implement and brittle. > (For files that don't report the minimum Emacs, maybe we can make a guess > that the minimum is "current-emacs - 2", or some other number? I'm not su= re > about the specifics here, but this would give us a warning that eventually > goes away after a couple of Emacs versions.) IOW, you're suggesting that we get rid of the warning in Emacs-33? I'm not opposed, but I'd rather leave that discussion to when we get to Emacs-33. =F0=9F=99=82 Stefan