GNU bug report logs -
#48781
adaptive-wrap.el (elpa): Enable lexical binding
Previous Next
Reported by: jakanakaevangeli <at> chiru.no
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2021 16:19:03 UTC
Severity: wishlist
Fixed in version 28.1
Done: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 48781 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 48781 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.
Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.
Report forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#48781
; Package
emacs
.
(Tue, 01 Jun 2021 16:19:03 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Acknowledgement sent
to
jakanakaevangeli <at> chiru.no
:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
.
(Tue, 01 Jun 2021 16:19:03 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-;;; adaptive-wrap.el --- Smart line-wrapping with wrap-prefix
+;;; adaptive-wrap.el --- Smart line-wrapping with wrap-prefix -*- lexical-binding: t; -*-
For 'adaptive-wrap.el' from ELPA
(http://elpa.gnu.org/packages/adaptive-wrap-0.5.el)
After testing for a week, I haven't observed any changes in behaviour.
Best regards.
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#48781
; Package
emacs
.
(Wed, 02 Jun 2021 05:58:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #8 received at 48781 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
jakanakaevangeli <at> chiru.no writes:
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> -;;; adaptive-wrap.el --- Smart line-wrapping with wrap-prefix
> +;;; adaptive-wrap.el --- Smart line-wrapping with wrap-prefix -*-
> lexical-binding: t; -*-
>
> For 'adaptive-wrap.el' from ELPA
> (http://elpa.gnu.org/packages/adaptive-wrap-0.5.el)
>
> After testing for a week, I haven't observed any changes in behaviour.
I'm not sure what the range of supported Emacs versions there are for
adaptive-wrap -- lexical binding can't be used in older Emacs versions
(but perhaps there are no version that has both package.el and doesn't
support lexical binding; I forget).
Stefan added to the CCs.
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#48781
; Package
emacs
.
(Wed, 02 Jun 2021 13:19:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #11 received at 48781 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
> -;;; adaptive-wrap.el --- Smart line-wrapping with wrap-prefix
> +;;; adaptive-wrap.el --- Smart line-wrapping with wrap-prefix -*- lexical-binding: t; -*-
>
> For 'adaptive-wrap.el' from ELPA
> (http://elpa.gnu.org/packages/adaptive-wrap-0.5.el)
>
> After testing for a week, I haven't observed any changes in behaviour.
Thanks, installed.
Lars wrote:
> I'm not sure what the range of supported Emacs versions there are for
> adaptive-wrap -- lexical binding can't be used in older Emacs versions
To the extent that the code doesn't take advantage of lexical scoping,
it doesn't matter because it will still work just as well as before on
Emacs<24.
> (but perhaps there are no version that has both package.el and doesn't
> support lexical binding; I forget).
The first Emacs that came with `package.el` was Emacs-24, which is also
the first that came with `lexical-binding`.
There have been versions of `package.el` patched to work in Emacs<24
(not sure how far back it worked), but indeed I tend to consider
Emacs-24 as the "baseline" for ELPA packages.
Stefan
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#48781
; Package
emacs
.
(Thu, 03 Jun 2021 07:55:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #14 received at 48781 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Stefan Monnier via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of
text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org> writes:
> To the extent that the code doesn't take advantage of lexical scoping,
> it doesn't matter because it will still work just as well as before on
> Emacs<24.
Sure; I was just concerned that somebody might take that as a sign to
add non-compatible code to lexical-bound files (like closures and other
nice stuff) in indeed backwards compatibility beyond Emacs 24 was an
issue (which it doesn't really seem to be).
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#48781
; Package
emacs
.
(Thu, 03 Jun 2021 13:36:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #17 received at 48781 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
>> To the extent that the code doesn't take advantage of lexical scoping,
>> it doesn't matter because it will still work just as well as before on
>> Emacs<24.
> Sure; I was just concerned that somebody might take that as a sign to
> add non-compatible code to lexical-bound files (like closures and other
> nice stuff) in indeed backwards compatibility beyond Emacs 24 was an
> issue (which it doesn't really seem to be).
AFAIK the desired compatibility for adaptive-wrap is not clearly known.
It hasn't been a problem so far, and if/when it turns into a problem it
should be easy to address ;-)
Stefan
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#48781
; Package
emacs
.
(Sun, 19 Sep 2021 16:53:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #20 received at 48781 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>>> To the extent that the code doesn't take advantage of lexical scoping,
>>> it doesn't matter because it will still work just as well as before on
>>> Emacs<24.
>> Sure; I was just concerned that somebody might take that as a sign to
>> add non-compatible code to lexical-bound files (like closures and other
>> nice stuff) in indeed backwards compatibility beyond Emacs 24 was an
>> issue (which it doesn't really seem to be).
>
> AFAIK the desired compatibility for adaptive-wrap is not clearly known.
> It hasn't been a problem so far, and if/when it turns into a problem it
> should be easy to address ;-)
Should we flip it to use lexical-binding then?
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#48781
; Package
emacs
.
(Mon, 20 Sep 2021 05:32:03 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #23 received at 48781 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se> writes:
> Should we flip it to use lexical-binding then?
Looks like this was done here:
commit 1a3cdaf967dfe1f611b15d177a3f6da7e07624fb
Author: jakanakaevangeli <jakanakaevangeli <at> chiru.no>
AuthorDate: Wed Jun 2 09:14:46 2021 -0400
So I'm closing this bug report.
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no
bug marked as fixed in version 28.1, send any further explanations to
48781 <at> debbugs.gnu.org and jakanakaevangeli <at> chiru.no
Request was from
Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
to
control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Mon, 20 Sep 2021 05:32:03 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
bug archived.
Request was from
Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org>
to
internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Mon, 18 Oct 2021 11:24:09 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
This bug report was last modified 2 years and 189 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.