Re: Using lexical-binding

[Marco Wahl <marcowahlsoft@gmail.com>]

> Kyle Meyer writes:
>> Stefan Monnier writes:
>>
>>> Since I'm not using it, I can't really test the result in any meaningful
>>> way.  Furthermore, just like `calendar.el`, it relies on dynamic scoping
>>> and `eval` in all kinds of ways, so it's very difficult to be sure the
>>> result is "sufficiently similar" to the old behavior not to break some
>>> funky use somewhere out there.
>>
>> I probably don't use many fancy agenda features, but I do work regularly
>> from it.  Running with these changes throughout today, I didn't notice
>> any issues.  Within the next few days, I'll try to test some non-default
>> settings and more obscure features that I don't use as part of my normal
>> workflow, and see if I can find any problems.
>
> I've continued to run with these changes and still haven't noticed any
> problems.  I've also tested various features (sticky agendas, block
> agendas, option setting from custom commands) and didn't spot anything.
>
>> I'll also push the current changes to scratch/sm/agenda-lexical with the
>> hope that others will test and report back.
>
> Has anyone else tried this out?

I'm using that branch for several days now without any problem.  LGTM!

I did nothing special for the test though.  At least I use column mode,
Org habits and interaction with calendar.


Thanks!
-- 
Marco