From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: Add ob-sclang.el for sclang Org-mode babel support in contrib/ Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:20:20 +0200 Message-ID: <87y3sobagb.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> References: <87ink4z27l.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87y3suis4y.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87wp8dpgsf.fsf@bzg.fr> <87fuey28ch.fsf@bzg.fr> <87bmpmg058.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87mv95ofs4.fsf@bzg.fr> <87injtd4mb.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87wp89rsfe.fsf@bzg.fr> <87a855c9ru.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87bmplrnho.fsf@bzg.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46398) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dMsrH-0006oZ-Ko for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 05:20:32 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dMsrG-0006Zj-NO for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 05:20:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87bmplrnho.fsf@bzg.fr> (Bastien Guerry's message of "Sun, 18 Jun 2017 23:32:03 +0200") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" To: Bastien Guerry Cc: Org-mode Hello, Bastien Guerry writes: > Maybe I miss something: when I create a file with C-x C-f whatever.el RET > it does not use a template or does not get created with lexical > binding on. > What are you referring to when you say "every Elisp file created > activates it"? It requires to activate `autoinsert' feature, which is bundled with Emacs. > * Dynamic Binding:: The default for binding local variables in = Emacs. OK. I stand corrected. Let me rephrase this then: There is absolutely no drawback in using lexical binding. Since Org 9.0, it _is_ the default for Org core: almost every Org library activates it nowadays. Please, pretty please, don't suggest it is different. > Whether lexical binding is a good default or not is another question, > and whether lexical-binding:t makes sense in a file with no binding > yet another, third one. Let's consider this a non-starter.=20 Again, lexical binding has _no_ drawback and makes life of developers easier (e.g., code is more readable, compiler reports more errors). I moved almost every library in Org to lexical binding, some changes being trivial, some painful, for a reason. I don't want to do a step backward in that area without a very strong reason=E2=80=93to tell the trut= h, even a strong reason wouldn't convince me. In particular, I don't want to introduce scoping bugs in a library because, at its creation, lexical binding wasn't activated and nobody cared to check the first line of the file before introducing a dubious binding. I sincerely hope we can agree on the topic, hic et nunc, and move on to actual coding. Regards, --=20 Nicolas Goaziou