From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/78154 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Gnus compatibility with the lexical binding branch (was: message-yank-original issue) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:20:29 -0500 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87lizygdhe.fsf_-_@lifelogs.com> References: <871v2ako4c.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87lj0ha52s.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87y64g6833.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87ei5tzneu.fsf@turtle.gmx.de> <877hbjkquz.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87tyemgenp.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87tyem3qy0.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1301412061 28018 80.91.229.12 (29 Mar 2011 15:21:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:21:01 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Stefan Monnier , To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: ding-owner+M26465@lists.math.uh.edu Tue Mar 29 17:20:57 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ding-account@gmane.org Original-Received: from util0.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.18]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q4aj2-0005V6-4U for ding-account@gmane.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 17:20:56 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by util0.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Q4aio-0002NI-9A; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:20:42 -0500 Original-Received: from mx2.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.33]) by util0.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Q4aim-0002Mx-Ek for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:20:40 -0500 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx2.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Q4aik-0000vj-KA for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:20:40 -0500 Original-Received: from chirelay1o.jumptrading.com ([38.98.147.153] helo=chirelay1.jumptrading.com) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Q4aij-0001jC-Kw for ding@gnus.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 17:20:37 +0200 Original-Received: from chirelay1.jumptrading.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by chirelay1.jumptrading.com (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id E868532004F for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:20:31 -0500 (CDT) X-AuditID: 26629395-9fd95bb000001d9a-a9-4d91f8bf5cfc Original-Received: from chiexchange02.w2k.jumptrading.com (unknown [38.98.147.140]) by chirelay1.jumptrading.com (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id BCC832DC006 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:20:31 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from internalsmtp.w2k.jumptrading.com (10.2.4.29) by chiexchange02.w2k.jumptrading.com (10.2.4.71) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.291.1; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:20:31 -0500 Original-Received: from tzlatanov-ubuntu-desktop.jumptrading.com ([10.2.14.81]) by internalsmtp.w2k.jumptrading.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:20:31 -0500 X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6;d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" In-Reply-To: <87tyem3qy0.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> (David Kastrup's message of "Tue, 29 Mar 2011 17:08:07 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110016 (No Gnus v0.16) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Mar 2011 15:20:31.0310 (UTC) FILETIME=[D79216E0:01CBEE24] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:78154 Archived-At: On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 17:08:07 +0200 David Kastrup wrote: DK> Well, the original idea as far as I can see was to eval a bunch of DK> let-bindings and let the inner construct be evaluated with this set of DK> bindings in effect. DK> Byte-compiling the inner stuff in the lexical binding branch would DK> appear to defeat that intent. DK> Probably a good idea to overthink the whole message-variable concept and DK> its implementation in gnus. I'm not familiar with the lexical binding branch. Is there a developer guide for ensuring compatibility with that branch? And are you (and Stefan) asking the Gnus developers to invest time in that compatibility? The reason I ask is that Gnus is full of creative solutions using eval and macros so I'd like to make sure we don't approach this as a single fix for the lexical binding branch that suddenly sets the expectation that the rest of Gnus has to be compatible as well. Ted