Re: [External] : Supplying DOC string in a `defun' using `defvar'

[Jean Louis]

* Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> [2021-06-03 01:57]:
> Have changed to lexical binding because I find that the
> :documentation strategy offers great capability.

Personal experience:

- before lexical bindings all my software functioned well, and I had
  no problems whatsoever; I did not think about it, it did not
  practically bother me;

  Problems were more or less cosmetical, and through discussions I
  could learn only that I could easier find some errors, missing
  variables, unused variables and similar if lexical binding is turned
  on and if I follow the workflow to find such issues. In the end
  compiler warnings are those which are helping me find issues.

Thus my workflow now is following:

1. modify the program;

2. M-x emacs-lisp-byte-compile or
2. M-x emacs-lisp-byte-compile-and-load, as that gives clues by byte
   compiler if there is any problem. Issues are solved at this step. 

3. Press a key for revision control record. In my case the program is
   recorded in the database and new version number is raised. That
   makes program ready to be installed.

4. M-x package-install-from-buffer or package-install-file, as this
   command may give me more clues if there is any problem.

5. Later would come testing with emacs -Q and or with other Emacs
   versions.

And I have a package as RCD Template Interpolation System for Emacs
https://hyperscope.link/3/7/1/3/3/RCD-Template-Interpolation-System-for-Emacs.html

that is separate package because I keep it dynamically not lexically,
with intention. It is used in business to personalize emails and
communication, like yesterday 756 times. There is no lexical bindings
involved and currently I don't know how would I implement it with
lexical bindings involved. I hope dynamic bindings will never go.

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/