RE: [External] : Re: Default lexical-binding to t

[Drew Adams]

> If some file has no explicit binding cookie, it
> is relativaly old, maybe even unmaintaned. No? 

No.

And even a new/maintained file might reasonably
have no such cookie - especially one with `nil'.

> Since using explicit lexical binding has been
> the recommendation for a while now.

The current state is still, and has long been,
that no cookie means dynamic binding by default.
Currently there's little reason for a file that
wants dynamic binding to add "lexical-binding:nil".

It doesn't hurt for such a file to add that now,
but there's no great reason to do so yet.