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

[Jean Louis]

* Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> [2021-06-03 01:40]:
> So, while it is technically possible to make :documentation work in the
> old dialect, it won't fix the core problem nor its most common
> manifestations.  That core problem can only be fixed by helping people
> move to the new dialect as quickly as possible so we can go back to
> living in a single dialect.
> 
> This discussion has already helped one user change its code to the new
> dialect, so maybe the fact that `:documentation` doesn't work in the old
> dialect should be seen as a feature to help people move to the
> new dialect.

The purpose of a function would be for example to change the
documentation string.

Purpose of a single function should not be to teach users whatever
dialect, etc.

That is not programming language any more, it is capricious
manipulation of programmers.

It is dark pattern by definition. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_pattern and it uses shame or
invalidation of programmers who use dynamic bindings to force them to
use lexical bindings.

It is something we don't do in free software. I hope this remains as
isolated case in Emacs Lisp.

There are better places to explain programming paradigms than in the
hidden features of the programming language.

Btw. Emacs Lisp can function just well (and so do large Emacs Lisp
packages) and you already confirmed that dynamic binding cannot just
disappear.

Then instead of providing good references how to program "proper" with
lexical bindings, messages come across like dynamic binding is some
kind of a witch and we should be witch hunting it and there is
impression that new functions will be developed to manipulate users to
conform to those views.

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/