From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastien Subject: Re: Compile warnings on Win7/Emacs24.0.50 Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 01:50:25 +0200 Message-ID: <87aacbup1a.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87aaci6tf8.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <82zkkhaeim.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:37983) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QixZd-0000rm-TH for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:50:07 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QixZb-0002y7-Qm for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:50:05 -0400 Received: from mail-fx0-f52.google.com ([209.85.161.52]:33316) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QixZb-0002xz-BP for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:50:03 -0400 Received: by fxd18 with SMTP id 18so6056605fxd.39 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:50:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <82zkkhaeim.fsf@gmail.com> (Andy Moreton's message of "Thu, 14 Jul 2011 01:32:01 +0100") 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-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Andy Moreton Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Andy Moreton writes: > On Wed 13 Jul 2011, Achim Gratz wrote: > >> I've tested some things on Win7 and happen to have an Emacs24 installed >> there, so I compiled the latest org-mode. I got quite a few warnings >> that I've never seen before with Emacs23, so I assume this is Emacs24 >> tightening the screws on some loseness. I don't remember the exact >> warning text, but it was something about top-level forms and global >> variables not having a prefix (presumably to keep them in their own >> namespace and not step on the toes of other packages). > > AFAIK this is because emacs-24 now supports lexical scope. The use of > name prefixes is used to manage namespace as you mention, but also as > convention used by the byte compiler to help distinguish between uses of > lexically and dynamicly scoped variable bindings. Yes, there is lots of (boring) work to do in this area to get rid of those warnings. Thanks for bringing this up, -- Bastien