From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "numbchild@gmail.com" Subject: Re: Add ob-sclang.el for sclang Org-mode babel support in contrib/ Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 22:44:28 +0800 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> <87o9tkxnyg.fsf@bzg.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11418c70e506d30552512d45" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45914) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dMxvM-00033r-PS for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 10:45:09 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dMxvL-0004OG-81 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 10:45:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87o9tkxnyg.fsf@bzg.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: Bastien Guerry Cc: Org-mode , Nicolas Goaziou --001a11418c70e506d30552512d45 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" After you two's discussion, I have some understanding about lexical scope and dynamic scope. I will add lexical binding if my code use it. [stardiviner] GPG key ID: 47C32433 IRC(freeenode): stardiviner Twitter: @numbchild Key fingerprint = 9BAA 92BC CDDD B9EF 3B36 CB99 B8C4 B8E5 47C3 2433 Blog: http://stardiviner.github.io/ On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Bastien Guerry wrote: > Hi Nicolas, > > I'm all for lexical-binding, and it's good to have it in Org's core. > > The author of ob-sclang.el used "2011-2017" for the copyright years, > which was obviously a typo and tells that the header was simply copied > from another file (which is 100% fine btw). > > From that, I inferred that the "lexical-binding:t" was also copied > without further thinking, especially since there is no binding at all > in this file. > > I think Stardiviner is the one who should make the decision, but I > don't see what "lexical-binding:t" would add to his actual code. > > For the more general concern: again, I'm all for lexical binding and > I'm well aware of its numerous advantages, but I don't think we should > rule dynamic binding from contributed Org code. Dynamic binding has > it's limitations, but when used carefully, it also has the advantage > of being easier to grok for beginners. We want to welcome beginner's > contributions. So I simply recommand lexical binding for Org's core, > and what fits developers best for Org's contributions. > > And I agree we can move on to something else :) > > -- > Bastien > --001a11418c70e506d30552512d45 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
After you two's discussion, I have some understanding = about lexical scope and dynamic scope. I will add lexical binding if my cod= e use it.

[stardiviner]=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 <Hack this world!>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0 GPG key ID: 47C32433
IRC(freeenode): stardiviner =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Twitter:=C2=A0 @numbchild
Key fingerprint =3D 9= BAA 92BC CDDD B9EF 3B36=C2=A0 CB99 B8C4 B8E5 47C3 2433
Blog: http://stardiviner.github.= io/

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Bastien Gue= rry <= bzg@gnu.org> wrote:
Hi Nico= las,

I'm all for lexical-binding, and it's good to have it in Org's = core.

The author of ob-sclang.el used "2011-2017" for the copyright yea= rs,
which was obviously a typo and tells that the header was simply copied
from another file (which is 100% fine btw).

>From that, I inferred that the "lexical-binding:t" was also copie= d
without further thinking, especially since there is no binding at all
in this file.

I think Stardiviner is the one who should make the decision, but I
don't see what "lexical-binding:t" would add to his actual co= de.

For the more general concern: again, I'm all for lexical binding and I'm well aware of its numerous advantages, but I don't think we sho= uld
rule dynamic binding from contributed Org code.=C2=A0 Dynamic binding has it's limitations, but when used carefully, it also has the advantage of being easier to grok for beginners.=C2=A0 We want to welcome beginner= 9;s
contributions.=C2=A0 So I simply recommand lexical binding for Org's co= re,
and what fits developers best for Org's contributions.

And I agree we can move on to something else :)

--
=C2=A0Bastien

--001a11418c70e506d30552512d45--