all messages for Emacs-related lists mirrored at yhetil.org
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Noam Postavsky <npostavs@gmail.com>
Cc: Emacs developers <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] master 5f72004: Revert "Fix command repetition with lexical-binding (Bug#29334)"
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 08:11:23 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <jwvk1wr9o3u.fsf-monnier+emacsdiffs@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAM-tV-844=TcDY0wuDkB-x_Hb+G7K4yYxT7tV43saTfkg2fw5Q@mail.gmail.com> (Noam Postavsky's message of "Mon, 8 Jan 2018 21:32:00 -0500")

> Hmm, I just reverted to the previous code without actually thinking
> about it. But after checking this more closely, I find that passing
> non-nil LEXICAL to `eval' doesn't really do anything for compiled
> functions anyway: the "lexicalness" has already been applied when
> compiling. E.g., the above change has no effect on the attached tests.

If the interactive spec has been compiled (as was always the case until
now), then indeed it shouldn't make a difference.  But if the byte-code
object was built by hand (or with the change you intended to install)
the interactive spec could be non-compiled, in which case the LEXICAL
arg to `eval` can have an effect.

So yes, it's not super important, but I think this part of your patch
should not have been reverted.


        Stefan



      reply	other threads:[~2018-01-09 13:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20180107024858.4583.97855@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org>
     [not found] ` <20180107024859.76DAA2020F@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org>
2018-01-07 15:36   ` [Emacs-diffs] master 5f72004: Revert "Fix command repetition with lexical-binding (Bug#29334)" Stefan Monnier
2018-01-09  2:32     ` Noam Postavsky
2018-01-09 13:11       ` Stefan Monnier [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=jwvk1wr9o3u.fsf-monnier+emacsdiffs@gnu.org \
    --to=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca \
    --cc=emacs-devel@gnu.org \
    --cc=npostavs@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index

	https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
	https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.