After you two's discussion, I have some understanding about lexical scope and dynamic scope. I will add lexical binding if my code use it.
[stardiviner] <Hack this world!> GPG key ID: 47C32433 IRC(freeenode): stardiviner Twitter: @numbchild Key fingerprint = 9BAA 92BC CDDD B9EF 3B36 CB99 B8C4 B8E5 47C3 2433 Blog: http://stardiviner.github.io/ On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Bastien Guerry <b...@gnu.org> wrote: > Hi Nicolas, > > I'm all for lexical-binding, and it's good to have it in Org's core. > > The author of ob-sclang.el used "2011-2017" for the copyright years, > which was obviously a typo and tells that the header was simply copied > from another file (which is 100% fine btw). > > From that, I inferred that the "lexical-binding:t" was also copied > without further thinking, especially since there is no binding at all > in this file. > > I think Stardiviner is the one who should make the decision, but I > don't see what "lexical-binding:t" would add to his actual code. > > For the more general concern: again, I'm all for lexical binding and > I'm well aware of its numerous advantages, but I don't think we should > rule dynamic binding from contributed Org code. Dynamic binding has > it's limitations, but when used carefully, it also has the advantage > of being easier to grok for beginners. We want to welcome beginner's > contributions. So I simply recommand lexical binding for Org's core, > and what fits developers best for Org's contributions. > > And I agree we can move on to something else :) > > -- > Bastien >
