GNU bug report logs - #77883
31.0.50; C-c C-e in *scratch* generates a missing lexical binding cookie warning

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: michael_heerdegen <at> web.de, 77883 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name
Subject: bug#77883: 31.0.50; C-c C-e in *scratch* generates a missing lexical binding cookie warning
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 16:45:44 +0300

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
> Cc: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>,  spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name,
>   77883 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 09:16:18 -0400
> 
> >> C-c C-e calls `eval-buffer' which "ignores the current value of the
> >> `lexical-binding' variable.  Instead it will heed any
> >> -*- lexical-binding: t -*- settings in the buffer, and if there is no such
> >> setting, the buffer will be evaluated without lexical binding."
> >> 
> >> Not good in this case.
> >
> > Is it good in any other case?
> >
> > I mean, what's the logic behind ignoring the current value of
> > lexical-binding, but heeding the cookie? let alone defaulting to
> > dynamic binding if there's no cookie?  If the reason is backward
> > compatibility, I think I'd like to see the details: where would
> > changing this cause problems?
> 
> I can't remember how we ended up with this, but I strongly suspect it
> has to do with the use of `eval-buffer` in `load-with-code-conversion`,
> which is the most common use of `eval-buffer` (in dynamic counts, not
> static counts, of course).

If load-with-code-conversion is the only case where this is needed, we
could do that locally in load-with-code-conversion, right?  I mean,
there's no need to "punish" all the users of eval-buffer for that
single use.  Right?

Previous Next

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