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

[Andrea Corallo]

Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden> writes:

> Hello, Andrea.
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 19:49:55 +0000, Andrea Corallo wrote:
>> Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> > What specific real problem does forcing M-: to use lexical binding
>> > solve?
>
>> My 2 cents are that it solves the problem of consistency if we assume
>> lexical binding is going to be the default for the future.
>
> What problem of consistency?
>
>> Indeed to become default it has to start somewhere.
>
> So, you would presumably agree with me, you know of no specific problem
> that lexical binding in M-: will solve.  It causes breakage.  But you
> think it's a good idea, anyway?
>
> I believe people who say lexical binding is a good idea, even though I
> can't see any benefit myself.  But there are places where lexical
> binding is not a good thing, and M-: is one of these, in my view.

Hi Alan,

Is just that I like the idea of having *scratch* buffer and M-: behaving
as the code I (and most of us) write (lexical).  I understand that,
being dynamic a super set of lexical, someone very much experienced can
still prefer the first, but is not my case at least :)

Regards

  Andrea

-- 
address@hidden