GNU bug report logs - #70068
[PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in lisp-interaction-mode

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 70068 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 70068 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in lisp-interaction-mode
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 11:31:49 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

The main intention here is to avoid underlining the first line in the
*scratch* buffer when flymake is enabled:

[0001-Don't-warn-about-lexical-binding-in-lisp-interacti.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]

-- 
	Philip Kaludercic on peregrine

Message #8 received at 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
Cc: 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in
 lisp-interaction-mode
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 09:57:45 +0300

> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 11:31:49 +0000
> 
> The main intention here is to avoid underlining the first line in the
> *scratch* buffer when flymake is enabled:

If this is the goal, why such a general change?  Wouldn't it be better
to special-case *scratch* in Flymake instead?  Making such
generalizations runs the risk of unintended consequences.

Message #11 received at 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in
 lisp-interaction-mode
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 11:07:00 +0000

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
>> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 11:31:49 +0000
>> 
>> The main intention here is to avoid underlining the first line in the
>> *scratch* buffer when flymake is enabled:
>
> If this is the goal, why such a general change?  Wouldn't it be better
> to special-case *scratch* in Flymake instead?  Making such
> generalizations runs the risk of unintended consequences.

My thinking was that one never needs to set the variable anyway, since
`lisp-interaction-mode' sets `lexical-binding' anyway.  Alternatively,
one could also modify the patch to check if `lexical-binding' is non-nil?

-- 
	Philip Kaludercic on peregrine

Message #14 received at 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>, 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in
 lisp-interaction-mode
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 15:54:30 +0300

> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
> Cc: 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 11:07:00 +0000
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
> >> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 11:31:49 +0000
> >> 
> >> The main intention here is to avoid underlining the first line in the
> >> *scratch* buffer when flymake is enabled:
> >
> > If this is the goal, why such a general change?  Wouldn't it be better
> > to special-case *scratch* in Flymake instead?  Making such
> > generalizations runs the risk of unintended consequences.
> 
> My thinking was that one never needs to set the variable anyway, since
> `lisp-interaction-mode' sets `lexical-binding' anyway.  Alternatively,
> one could also modify the patch to check if `lexical-binding' is non-nil?

The latter possibility would be better, I think.  Stefan, WDYT?

Message #17 received at 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>, 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in
 lisp-interaction-mode
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2024 01:27:27 -0400

>> My thinking was that one never needs to set the variable anyway, since
>> `lisp-interaction-mode' sets `lexical-binding' anyway.  Alternatively,
>> one could also modify the patch to check if `lexical-binding' is non-nil?
>
> The latter possibility would be better, I think.  Stefan, WDYT?

Testing `lexical-binding` sounds good: the purpose is to encourage people
to activate `lexical-binding`, rather than encourage them to add a magic cookie.


        Stefan

Message #22 received at 70068-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 70068-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in
 lisp-interaction-mode
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2024 08:52:54 +0000

Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>>> My thinking was that one never needs to set the variable anyway, since
>>> `lisp-interaction-mode' sets `lexical-binding' anyway.  Alternatively,
>>> one could also modify the patch to check if `lexical-binding' is non-nil?
>>
>> The latter possibility would be better, I think.  Stefan, WDYT?
>
> Testing `lexical-binding` sounds good: the purpose is to encourage people
> to activate `lexical-binding`, rather than encourage them to add a magic cookie.

OK, I have modified by patch and pushed it to master (0197db7b).

>
>         Stefan
>

-- 
	Philip Kaludercic on peregrine

Message #25 received at 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
To: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>,
 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in
 lisp-interaction-mode
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 11:35:50 +0200

> -      (unless (local-variable-p 'lexical-binding)
> +      (unless (or (local-variable-p 'lexical-binding)
> +                  (null lexical-binding))

That logic doesn't make sense to me, and it clearly doesn't work so I reverted it.
(For some reason the test didn't catch it, but it's now been made more robust.)

Message #28 received at 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
To: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>,
 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in
 lisp-interaction-mode
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2024 18:17:16 +0000

Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com> writes:

>> -      (unless (local-variable-p 'lexical-binding)
>> +      (unless (or (local-variable-p 'lexical-binding)
>> +                  (null lexical-binding))
>
> That logic doesn't make sense to me, and it clearly doesn't work so I reverted it.
> (For some reason the test didn't catch it, but it's now been made more robust.)

You are right, I made a mistake; What I want to say is this:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el
index 5cff86784f0..a1194f2dc70 100644
--- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el
+++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el
@@ -2234,7 +2234,8 @@ byte-compile-file
         (setq buffer-read-only nil
               filename buffer-file-name))
       ;; Don't inherit lexical-binding from caller (bug#12938).
-      (unless (local-variable-p 'lexical-binding)
+      (when (or (not (local-variable-p 'lexical-binding))
+                (null lexical-binding))
         (let ((byte-compile-current-buffer (current-buffer)))
           (displaying-byte-compile-warnings
            (byte-compile-warn-x
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

What makes me uncertain is that you say it makes "no sense", so I  want
to make sure I am not misunderstanding something completely.

-- 
	Philip Kaludercic on peregrine

Message #31 received at 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
To: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>,
 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in
 lisp-interaction-mode
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 21:07:19 +0200

3 apr. 2024 kl. 20.17 skrev Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>:

> You are right, I made a mistake; What I want to say is this:

> -      (unless (local-variable-p 'lexical-binding)
> +      (when (or (not (local-variable-p 'lexical-binding))
> +                (null lexical-binding))

Are you sure that you didn't mean

    (unless (or (local-variable-p 'lexical-binding)
                lexical-binding)

a.k.a.

    (when (and (not (local-variable-p 'lexical-binding)
               (not lexical-binding))

which may or may not make more sense? But how would either of these work, given that flymake runs a byte-compilation in a spawned Emacs and, as far as I can tell, propagates neither the buffer mode nor the lexical-binding value to that process?

Message #34 received at 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
To: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>,
 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in
 lisp-interaction-mode
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2024 12:14:02 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

If we want to do something about this, here are some options.

1. Add -*-lexical-binding:t-*- to initial-scratch-message.

2. It will sort itself out eventually as lexical-binding becomes the default. Sit and wait (a few years).

3. Something like the attached hack.

[lexbind-warning-supp.diff (application/octet-stream, attachment)]

Message #37 received at 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
To: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>,
 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in
 lisp-interaction-mode
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2024 07:21:43 +0000

Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com> writes:

> If we want to do something about this, here are some options.
>
> 1. Add -*-lexical-binding:t-*- to initial-scratch-message.
>
> 2. It will sort itself out eventually as lexical-binding becomes the default. Sit and wait (a few years).
>
> 3. Something like the attached hack.

I like the third option.

-- 
	Philip Kaludercic on peregrine

Message #40 received at 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
Cc: mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca,
 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in
 lisp-interaction-mode
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2024 14:41:25 +0300

> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
> Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>,  Eli Zaretskii
>  <eliz <at> gnu.org>,  70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2024 07:21:43 +0000
> 
> Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > If we want to do something about this, here are some options.
> >
> > 1. Add -*-lexical-binding:t-*- to initial-scratch-message.
> >
> > 2. It will sort itself out eventually as lexical-binding becomes the default. Sit and wait (a few years).
> >
> > 3. Something like the attached hack.
> 
> I like the third option.

Agreed.

Stefan?

Message #43 received at 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>, mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com,
 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in
 lisp-interaction-mode
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2024 08:02:11 -0400

>> > If we want to do something about this, here are some options.
>> >
>> > 1. Add -*-lexical-binding:t-*- to initial-scratch-message.
>> >
>> > 2. It will sort itself out eventually as lexical-binding becomes the
>> > default. Sit and wait (a few years).
>> >
>> > 3. Something like the attached hack.
>> 
>> I like the third option.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Stefan?

I vote against 1, and I'm fine with both 2 and 3.


        Stefan

Message #46 received at 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>,
 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in
 lisp-interaction-mode
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 10:57:40 +0200

8 apr. 2024 kl. 14.02 skrev Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>:

>>> I like the third option.
>> 
>> Agreed.
> 
> I vote against 1, and I'm fine with both 2 and 3.

Looks like option 3 won. Actually I implemented option 3' which is like 3 but checks the mode instead of lexical-binding, on the grounds that a user who damages his lexical cookie by mistake wants to be reminded of it as soon as possible.

Message #49 received at 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
Cc: philipk <at> posteo.net, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in
 lisp-interaction-mode
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2024 12:51:59 +0300

> From: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 10:57:40 +0200
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,
>  Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>,
>  70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> 8 apr. 2024 kl. 14.02 skrev Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>:
> 
> >>> I like the third option.
> >> 
> >> Agreed.
> > 
> > I vote against 1, and I'm fine with both 2 and 3.
> 
> Looks like option 3 won. Actually I implemented option 3' which is like 3 but checks the mode instead of lexical-binding, on the grounds that a user who damages his lexical cookie by mistake wants to be reminded of it as soon as possible.

That's not what I see in the changes you installed on master.

But if you want to check the mode, against what would you compare it?

Message #52 received at 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: philipk <at> posteo.net, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in
 lisp-interaction-mode
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 12:45:18 +0200

9 apr. 2024 kl. 11.51 skrev Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>:

>> Looks like option 3 won. Actually I implemented option 3' which is like 3 but checks the mode instead of lexical-binding, on the grounds that a user who damages his lexical cookie by mistake wants to be reminded of it as soon as possible.
> 
> That's not what I see in the changes you installed on master.

Then I made a mistake, but I don't see where. The intent is to have flymake add the argument

  --eval (setq bytecomp--inhibit-lexical-cookie-warning t)

if (derived-mode-p 'lisp-interaction-mode) is true, and then make the warning conditional on that variable. Doesn't it work?

What I can see is an unrelated bug in flymake: if the first line of a buffer (of an .el file) is empty, then the compiler emits a lexical cookie warning but flymake doesn't show it. Stefan, is this because there is no text to attach the warning to?

Message #55 received at 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
Cc: philipk <at> posteo.net, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in
 lisp-interaction-mode
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2024 14:24:42 +0300

> From: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 12:45:18 +0200
> Cc: monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca,
>  philipk <at> posteo.net,
>  70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> 9 apr. 2024 kl. 11.51 skrev Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>:
> 
> >> Looks like option 3 won. Actually I implemented option 3' which is like 3 but checks the mode instead of lexical-binding, on the grounds that a user who damages his lexical cookie by mistake wants to be reminded of it as soon as possible.
> > 
> > That's not what I see in the changes you installed on master.
> 
> Then I made a mistake, but I don't see where. The intent is to have flymake add the argument
> 
>   --eval (setq bytecomp--inhibit-lexical-cookie-warning t)
> 
> if (derived-mode-p 'lisp-interaction-mode) is true, and then make the warning conditional on that variable. Doesn't it work?

Ah, okay, then it's my misunderstanding: I saw the
(local-variable-p 'lexical-binding) test and thought you
intended to replace that with a mode test.  Apologies.

Message #58 received at 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, philipk <at> posteo.net, 70068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in
 lisp-interaction-mode
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2024 09:35:04 -0400

> What I can see is an unrelated bug in flymake: if the first line of a buffer
> (of an .el file) is empty, then the compiler emits a lexical cookie warning
> but flymake doesn't show it.  Stefan, is this because there is no text to
> attach the warning to?

Sorry, I'm not very familiar with flymake.


        Stefan

Message #61 received at 70068-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>,
 70068-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70068: [PATCH] Don't warn about lexical binding in
 lisp-interaction-mode
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 15:42:20 +0200

9 apr. 2024 kl. 15.35 skrev Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>:

> Sorry, I'm not very familiar with flymake.

I'll open a new bug for it. Closing this one.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.