GNU bug report logs - #35413
[PATCH] Use lexical binding for ediff

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Alex Branham <alex.branham <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 35413 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#35413: [PATCH] Use lexical binding for ediff
Date: Fri, 03 May 2019 11:53:05 +0300

> From: Alex Branham <alex.branham <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 07:55:20 -0500

Sorry for a long delay in responding.

> I've attached a patch that converts ediff to use lexical-binding. I've
> been using it locally for a couple of weeks without noticing any issues,
> though I'm not a super-heavy ediff user.

I assume you ran all ediff tests we have, but did you also try
commands outside the ediff-* group, to make sure they still work?  I
think VC has some commands, and there's also emerge.

I have a couple of questions regarding the changes:

> (ediff-prepare-meta-buffer): Remove unused startup-hooks
> (ediff-multi-patch-internal): Remove unused variable startup-hooks.

startup-hooks are used by emerge and maybe by users.  Why remove it?

> (ediff-date): Remove.

Why?

> @@ -714,9 +714,8 @@ behavior."
>  ;; we may visit them recursively.  DIR1 is the directory to inspect.
>  ;; MERGE-AUTOSTORE-DIR is the directory where to auto-store the results of
>  ;; merges.  Can be nil.
> -(defun ediff-get-directory-files-under-revision (jobname
> -						 regexp dir1
> -						 &optional merge-autostore-dir)
> +(defun ediff-get-directory-files-under-revision (regexp dir1
> +						        &optional merge-autostore-dir)

This and other hunks change signatures of public functions, which is
always a problem.  Is this a must?  Can't we leave the signatures
alone?  If not, what are the problems that necessitate that?

Thanks.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.