GNU bug report logs - #74261
30.0.92; Remove modeline warning for explicit uses of dynamic binding

Previous Next

Full log

Message #20 received at 74261 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: rms <at> gnu.org
Cc: christopher <at> librehacker.com, drew.adams <at> oracle.com, 74261 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#74261: 30.0.92;
 Remove modeline warning for explicit uses of dynamic binding
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2024 14:20:20 +0200

> From: Richard Stallman <rms <at> gnu.org>
> Cc: drew.adams <at> oracle.com, christopher <at> librehacker.com,
> 	74261 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2024 23:32:10 -0500
> 
>   > > So I think that the indicator that this file uses dynamic binding
>   > > ought to be somewhat loud, so that users won't overlook it.
> 
>   > I tend to agree, but only if the file does not already have a
>   > lexical-binding cookie which makes the file use dynamical binding.
> 
> Are you assuming that the person looking at the file
> is also the file's author?  In that situation, I would agree:
> you don't need to be warned that your file is set to use
> dynamic binding if you set it that way yourself.
> 
> But I think it is useful to show this warning when person A looks at
> person B's file.  Person A is likely to assume the file use lexical
> binding, when just about all files do so; therefore, it is useful to
> inform A that this file makes the unusual choice.

That could be the case, yes.

However, another way of looking at such situation is that if the
author (person B) decided the file should use dynamic scoping, that's
"good enough" for person A.  For example, assume that person B is
Emacs maintainers, and the file is part of Emacs.

I guess which POV is taken depends on whether person A is about to
hack on the file, or wants a seep understanding of its workings, or is
just reading the code?

Previous Next

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