From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kaushal Modi Subject: Re: Add ob-sclang.el for sclang Org-mode babel support in contrib/ Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 10:14:53 +0000 Message-ID: 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> <87y3sobagb.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045fff24ad211c05524d68ef" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34019) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dMtiA-0002M9-Qo for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 06:15:11 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dMti9-0004mB-KQ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 06:15:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87y3sobagb.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> 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: Nicolas Goaziou , Bastien Guerry Cc: Org-mode --f403045fff24ad211c05524d68ef Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jun 19, 2017, 5:21 AM Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > 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. > > 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 tr= uth, > even a strong reason wouldn't convince me. > Here are some of my observations on the topic of lexical-binding by following emacs-devel closely for the past few years. It has become a norm to write new elisp code that is lexical-binding friendly. I have seen this movement started on emacs master for a long time now (since 2011), and still there is a continuous effort to enable lexical-binding on more and more emacs core files: http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/log/?qt=3Dgrep&q=3Dlexical-bindi= ng The same applies to Magit and many other external emacs packages ( https://github.com/search?q=3Dlexical-binding+language%3A"Emacs+Lisp"&type= =3Dcommits ). The idea is that once almost all the elisp code out there is lexical-binding compatible, the default of emacs can be changed to that and dynamic binding can be obsoleted. I have also seen how a lexically bound package is more portable as there is no implicit reliance on global variables from multiple other packages. > -- Kaushal Modi --f403045fff24ad211c05524d68ef Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017, 5:21 AM N= icolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:
=C2=A0 There is absolutely no drawback in using lexical binding. Since Org<= br> =C2=A0 9.0, it _is_ the default for Org core: almost every Org library
=C2=A0 activates it nowadays.=C2=A0

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.
=

Here are some of my observations on the topic of lexi= cal-binding by following emacs-devel closely for the past few years.=C2=A0<= br>

It has become a norm to write new elisp code t= hat is lexical-binding friendly.=C2=A0

I have seen= this movement started on emacs master for a long time now (since 2011), an= d still there is a continuous effort to enable lexical-binding on more and = more emacs core files:=C2=A0http://git= .savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/log/?qt=3Dgrep&q=3Dlexical-binding=

The same applies to Magit and many other external= emacs packages ( https://github.com/search?q=3Dlexical-binding+language%3A&= quot;Emacs+Lisp"&type=3Dcommits ).=C2=A0

= The idea is that once almost all the elisp code out there is lexical-bindin= g compatible, the default of emacs can be changed to that and dynamic bindi= ng can be obsoleted.

I have also seen how a lexica= lly bound package is more portable as there is no implicit reliance on glob= al variables from multiple other packages.
=
--

Kaushal Modi

--f403045fff24ad211c05524d68ef--