GNU bug report logs - #50195
[PATCH] Adding diary-offset, a diary-sexp offsetting another diary-sexp.

Previous Next

Full log

Message #29 received at 50195 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
Cc: larsi <at> gnus.org, hi <at> ypei.me, 50195 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#50195: [PATCH] Adding diary-offset, a diary-sexp offsetting
 another diary-sexp.
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 19:07:39 +0300

> From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
> Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>,  hi <at> ypei.me,  50195 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 17:22:04 +0200
> 
> > Ugh!  Is it worth it?  If we cannot convert these functions to use
> > lexical-binding, maybe we should say lexical-binding: nil in the first
> > line of the file, and remove all those gross kludges?
> 
> That would not work, you would still get warnings about free variables.

I don't understand.  This code did compile under dynamic-binding, so
what warnings did you have in mind?

> This case is a bit special and not directly related to lexical-binding
> because these variables are just not declared with `defvar' (and I think
> we don't want to introduce global variables like `date').

You are saying this always emitted warnings?

Previous Next

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