GNU bug report logs - #77883
31.0.50; C-c C-e in *scratch* generates a missing lexical binding cookie warning

Previous Next

To reply to this bug, email your comments to 77883 AT debbugs.gnu.org.

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

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

From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 31.0.50; C-c C-e in *scratch* generates a missing lexical binding
 cookie warning
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 10:35:42 +0800

Hello,

Found another case.

*scratch* should probably remain under the dynamic binding dialect of
Emacs Lisp until and unless we switch the default.

-- 
Sean Whitton

Message #8 received at 77883 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Sean Whitton <spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: 77883 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#77883: 31.0.50;
 C-c C-e in *scratch* generates a missing lexical binding cookie
 warning
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 13:49:07 +0300

> From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name>
> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 10:35:42 +0800
> 
> Found another case.

IMO, it's a bug, because "C-x C-e" doesn't generate any such warnings,
and lexical-binding is t in *scratch* anyway.

> *scratch* should probably remain under the dynamic binding dialect of
> Emacs Lisp until and unless we switch the default.

I think we intentionally decided to switch to t, and I don't see a
reason to revert that decision.  Please provide a rationale for your
suggestion, because without that there's no way of reasoning about
this.

Message #11 received at 77883 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 77883 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>,
 Sean Whitton <spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name>
Subject: Re: bug#77883: 31.0.50; C-c C-e in *scratch* generates a missing
 lexical binding cookie warning
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 13:12:48 +0200

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

> IMO, it's a bug, because "C-x C-e" doesn't generate any such warnings,
> and lexical-binding is t in *scratch* anyway.

I agree it is a bug.

C-c C-e calls `eval-buffer' which "ignores the current value of the
`lexical-binding' variable.  Instead it will heed any
-*- lexical-binding: t -*- settings in the buffer, and if there is no such
setting, the buffer will be evaluated without lexical binding."

Not good in this case.


Michael.

Message #14 received at 77883 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 77883 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: Re: bug#77883: 31.0.50; C-c C-e in *scratch* generates a missing
 lexical binding cookie warning
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 19:37:04 +0800

Hello,

On Fri 18 Apr 2025 at 01:49pm +03, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name>
>> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 10:35:42 +0800
>>
>> Found another case.
>
> IMO, it's a bug, because "C-x C-e" doesn't generate any such warnings,
> and lexical-binding is t in *scratch* anyway.

Right.

>> *scratch* should probably remain under the dynamic binding dialect of
>> Emacs Lisp until and unless we switch the default.
>
> I think we intentionally decided to switch to t, and I don't see a
> reason to revert that decision.

Oh, me neither, I had forgotten/missed that discussion.
What I really meant is that we shouldn't be adding a lexical binding
cookie to the file.

-- 
Sean Whitton

Message #17 received at 77883 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
Cc: 77883 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name
Subject: Re: bug#77883: 31.0.50; C-c C-e in *scratch* generates a missing
 lexical binding cookie warning
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 15:13:40 +0300

> From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
> Cc: Sean Whitton <spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name>,  Stefan Monnier
>  <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>,  77883 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 13:12:48 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > IMO, it's a bug, because "C-x C-e" doesn't generate any such warnings,
> > and lexical-binding is t in *scratch* anyway.
> 
> I agree it is a bug.
> 
> C-c C-e calls `eval-buffer' which "ignores the current value of the
> `lexical-binding' variable.  Instead it will heed any
> -*- lexical-binding: t -*- settings in the buffer, and if there is no such
> setting, the buffer will be evaluated without lexical binding."
> 
> Not good in this case.

Is it good in any other case?

I mean, what's the logic behind ignoring the current value of
lexical-binding, but heeding the cookie? let alone defaulting to
dynamic binding if there's no cookie?  If the reason is backward
compatibility, I think I'd like to see the details: where would
changing this cause problems?

And note that this aspect of the eval-buffer's behavior is not
documented in the ELisp manual, which is also not a good thing.

Message #20 received at 77883 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 77883 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name
Subject: Re: bug#77883: 31.0.50; C-c C-e in *scratch* generates a missing
 lexical binding cookie warning
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 14:22:36 +0200

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

> I mean, what's the logic behind ignoring the current value of
> lexical-binding, but heeding the cookie? let alone defaulting to
> dynamic binding if there's no cookie?  If the reason is backward
> compatibility, I think I'd like to see the details: where would
> changing this cause problems?
>
> And note that this aspect of the eval-buffer's behavior is not
> documented in the ELisp manual, which is also not a good thing.

Indeed.  This looks like an anachronism to me.  But I would have to
investigate how the current situation evolved.  Unless someone else
remembers...


Michael.

Message #23 received at 77883 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 77883 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name
Subject: Re: bug#77883: 31.0.50; C-c C-e in *scratch* generates a missing
 lexical binding cookie warning
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 15:05:34 +0200

Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de> writes:

> Indeed.  This looks like an anachronism to me.  But I would have to
> investigate how the current situation evolved.  Unless someone else
> remembers...

See Bug#20139.  That was quite a while ago (2019) and just documented
the status quo (and in the docstring only) at that point of time because
someone had been surprised by the behavior.

Looks like `eval-buffer' has just been completely forgotten in the
transition to making lexical binding the default.


Michael.

Message #26 received at 77883 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>, 77883 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name
Subject: Re: bug#77883: 31.0.50; C-c C-e in *scratch* generates a missing
 lexical binding cookie warning
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 09:16:18 -0400

>> C-c C-e calls `eval-buffer' which "ignores the current value of the
>> `lexical-binding' variable.  Instead it will heed any
>> -*- lexical-binding: t -*- settings in the buffer, and if there is no such
>> setting, the buffer will be evaluated without lexical binding."
>> 
>> Not good in this case.
>
> Is it good in any other case?
>
> I mean, what's the logic behind ignoring the current value of
> lexical-binding, but heeding the cookie? let alone defaulting to
> dynamic binding if there's no cookie?  If the reason is backward
> compatibility, I think I'd like to see the details: where would
> changing this cause problems?

I can't remember how we ended up with this, but I strongly suspect it
has to do with the use of `eval-buffer` in `load-with-code-conversion`,
which is the most common use of `eval-buffer` (in dynamic counts, not
static counts, of course).


        Stefan

Message #29 received at 77883 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: michael_heerdegen <at> web.de, 77883 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name
Subject: Re: bug#77883: 31.0.50; C-c C-e in *scratch* generates a missing
 lexical binding cookie warning
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 16:45:44 +0300

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
> Cc: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>,  spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name,
>   77883 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 09:16:18 -0400
> 
> >> C-c C-e calls `eval-buffer' which "ignores the current value of the
> >> `lexical-binding' variable.  Instead it will heed any
> >> -*- lexical-binding: t -*- settings in the buffer, and if there is no such
> >> setting, the buffer will be evaluated without lexical binding."
> >> 
> >> Not good in this case.
> >
> > Is it good in any other case?
> >
> > I mean, what's the logic behind ignoring the current value of
> > lexical-binding, but heeding the cookie? let alone defaulting to
> > dynamic binding if there's no cookie?  If the reason is backward
> > compatibility, I think I'd like to see the details: where would
> > changing this cause problems?
> 
> I can't remember how we ended up with this, but I strongly suspect it
> has to do with the use of `eval-buffer` in `load-with-code-conversion`,
> which is the most common use of `eval-buffer` (in dynamic counts, not
> static counts, of course).

If load-with-code-conversion is the only case where this is needed, we
could do that locally in load-with-code-conversion, right?  I mean,
there's no need to "punish" all the users of eval-buffer for that
single use.  Right?

Message #32 received at 77883 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: michael_heerdegen <at> web.de, 77883 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name
Subject: Re: bug#77883: 31.0.50; C-c C-e in *scratch* generates a missing
 lexical binding cookie warning
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 11:36:30 -0400

> If load-with-code-conversion is the only case where this is needed, we
> could do that locally in load-with-code-conversion, right?  I mean,
> there's no need to "punish" all the users of eval-buffer for that
> single use.  Right?

I guess someone should look at the other uses of `eval-buffer` to figure
out if that's the case.

Another approach might be to check if `lexical-binding` is set
buffer-locally and if so to obey it without even checking the
`lexical-binding` cookie.


        Stefan

Previous Next

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