GNU bug report logs - #66706
[PATCH] Automatic elisp dialect insertion

Previous Next

Full log

Message #205 received at 66706 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
Cc: dmitry <at> gutov.dev, mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com, 66706 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, stefankangas <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#66706: [PATCH] Automatic elisp dialect insertion
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2023 09:26:06 +0300

> From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
> Cc: dmitry <at> gutov.dev,  mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com,  66706 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
>   stefankangas <at> gmail.com,  monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
> Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2023 05:14:11 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > > Short version of my reply: Emacs users are a different group than Elisp
> > > package developers.  Let's help them by forcing a lexical binding cookie
> > > in the config file instead of simply making their Emacs potentially not
> > > starting up.
> >
> > If this is about init files, we could instead make processing init
> > files assume lexical-binding by default.
> 
> That's exactly what we should avoid because it can make Emacs not start
> up for init files that require the current default of dynamical binding.

How many of init files do indeed require dynamic binding?  And why?

If a new Emacs version refuses to start because something in the init
files goes against some new Emacs feature, we have --debug-init and
other facilities to debug and fix those.  Why should lexical-binding
be considered different from any other backward-incompatible change
that we sometimes do?

In any case, how will injecting the cookie help those users, exactly?
If people who write init files don't understand the implications of
lexical-binding, their Emacs will fail to start, something that you
think is a catastrophe.  And if they do understand it, their init
files are already compatible with lexical-binding.

> We also should not assume dynamical binding: lexical binding is the
> default.  Emacs should not guess: it should ask the user and then add a
> cookie.  That's my point.

Your point seems to be incompatible with our plan, which is to turn on
lexical-binding by default at some point.  We don't want to have a
schism of two separate flavors of Lisp, we want only one.  The current
situation is a transitional period, not the ideal.  You seem to be
suggesting that we should keep this situation forever, and that is not
what we decided, AFAIU.

Previous Next

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