Re: Default lexical-binding to t

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hello, Eli.

On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 17:19:57 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2024 14:01:30 +0000
> > Cc: joostkremers@fastmail.fm, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> > From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>

> > > If you are against this, you are in a tiny minority, and should
> > > probably stop fighting this war, because it was lost long ago.

> > I'm not.  I'm against the process, or lack of process, by which it was
> > introduced.

> This "lack of process" is our process.

It's normal, even here, when introducing possibly breaking changes to
announce them and deal with objections/bugs/incompatibilities.  For
example, you did this on introducing line numbers in the display engine.
This worked very well, in that several bugs got fixed before landing it
on master.

Maybe this did happen with lexical binding.  If it did, I can't find it.

> > I don't think there ever was an explicit decision taken - a thread on
> > emacs-devel, which ended up with something such as:

> >     "I think we're all agreed that the advantages of lexical binding
> >     outweigh the disadvantages, and that from now on we'll work towards
> >     converting the entire Emacs code base."

> This isn't a parliament.  We discuss stuff, and then whoever is
> motivated to do the job does it as well as he/she can, taking the
> discussions into consideration.

> Take this last discussion about reported nested loads as part of an
> error message, and consider your own behavior there.  This is how
> everything works here, always had, like it or not.

> > Yes, there have been some, even some initiated by me, over the past few
> > years.  But none in the context of deciding whether or not to introduce
> > lexical binding.

> That's because no one was really against it, believe it or not.

OK.  But surely somebody, somewhere, had some reservations?

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).