Re: Lexical binding in GNU Emacs - source of problem for XEmacs!?
Ar an dara lá de mí Eanair, scríobh Stephen J. Turnbull:
So while in theory lexical-* code would be the "stablest, most
reliable" approach, in practice that will be punishing developers
porting code from GNU Emacs by requiring them to either do the
necessary analysis for applying dynamic scope to code designed
assuming lexical binding, or substitute lexical-let and friends for
the unmarked versions everywhere (which will result in spurious diffs
and probably a fair number of spurious merge conflicts). Can we
really afford to do that?
I’ve no particular reason to punish people porting GNU code in that way, and
I think we should support -*- lexbind: t -*- as soon as possible.
I think it is a bad design choice, it makes two functions from two different
versions of the same file more difficult to compare, in a relatively subtle
way that is easy to get wrong, and that is asking for bugs. It is very
confusing to someone non-expert at Emacs Lisp, even people comfortable with
other languages, since dynamic binding is so rare today that they’re
unlikely to be acquainted with the choice. But that’s something to just put
up with, with GNU code that we’re using.
I don’t much care what their plans are, if I did I’d have worried about
Guile support within XEmacs. I care about what their committed code does.
--
‘Tramadol is further fed to cattle […] when working them […] (as draft
animals) so that the animals do not get tired quickly. …’
— Angewandte Chemie, Sept 2014, describing the social context of
(synthetic) tramadol having been found in Cameroon tree roots.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta