[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: lexical-binding is turned on in more use cases

From: Alan Mackenzie
Subject: Re: lexical-binding is turned on in more use cases
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 21:53:34 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)

Hello, Michael.

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 22:14:28 +0100, Michael Heerdegen wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden> writes:

> > > You're probably right that "lexical-scope still isn't the norm for most
> > > old school Emacs Lispers", so this change will irk those.  But my
> > > impression is that the majority of *new* Elisp packages is using
> > > lexical-binding nowadays, and the majority of Elisp snippets I see
> > > quoted in StackExchange either work both ways or presume
> > > lexical-binding (and then come with additional comments along the lines
> > > of "I tried it and it didn't work ... indeed, you need to enable
> > > lexical-binding by ... ah yes now it works").

> > The above paragraph is sophistry.  Lexical binding in M-: simply isn't
> > very useful, even when calling functions compiled with lexical binding.

> It's not ok if it's "broken" for you, but it's ok for you if it's
> "broken" for all the people who use lexical binding for their code?

No, it's not.

I've asked several times (possibly even many times) here for somebody to
give an example of code which might be typed into M-: which requires
lexical-binding to work.  Up until very recently, if even that, there
was no answer.

Would you perhaps like to give me such an example?

And I'm angry that such a far reaching change was pushed through without
open discussion beforehand on emacs-devel.  This seems to happen far too
often in Emacs development.

I have recently proposed that the lexicality of bindings created in M-:
(etc.) should be determined by a customisation variable, and have
offered to code it up.  Would you find this a good solution?


> Michael.

Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]