[External] : Supplying DOC string in a `defun' using `defvar'

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2021 at 1:35 AM
> From: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> To: "Stefan Monnier" <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: [External] : Supplying DOC string in a `defun' using `defvar'
>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2021 at 1:09 AM
> > From: "Stefan Monnier" <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> > To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> > Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> > Subject: Re: [External] : Supplying DOC string in a `defun' using `defvar'
> >
> > > Then, ultimately, there will not be any dynamic binding?
> >
> > Not at all: the old dialect is called "dynamically bound" because its
> > most recognizable property is that it offers only dynamic binding,
> > whereas the new dialect has both.
>
> > > From my point of view, the docstring should have nothing to do with
> > > either dynamic or lexical binding.
> >
> > No, but it's a new language feature, so it makes sense that you need to
> > use the new dialect for it be available.
>
> I understand
>
> > > And that lexical binding would become default, but not yet.
> >
> > The "default" is largely irrelevant: you get to choose for every ELisp
> > file which dialect it uses.
>
> Would that not be excessive.  Should new users worry about dynamic and
> lexical binding when playing the elisp?  I would say that the designation
> should be normally set by the user, except when he has a reason for doing
> things differently.

Small mistake there, meant to say that the designation should *not* be
frequently set by the user.  Bet eventually things will stick to lexical
from what I have captured.  I like lexical binding but can see the usefulness
of dynamic binding to be available at user request.

> > Have you tried to click on that "/d"?
>
> It introduced  -*- lexical-binding: t; -*- at the top of the file
>
> Is that enough or would I need additional setup commands?
>
> >         Stefan
> >
> >
>
>