bug#44854: [PATCH] Add lexical-binding cookie to autoload files

[Drew Adams]

> >> Does anyone have any objections to, or see any problems with adding
> the
> >> lexical-binding cookie to autoload files, as in the attached patch?
> >
> > What are the benefits from doing so?
> 
> AFAICT, there are no immediate practical benefits.  But if we ever want
> to have lexical-binding enabled by default, many things will have to be
> done.  This is just another (admittedly small) step on that long
> journey.

Why would we put such behavior in autoloading?

If a file is to be autoloaded then it's up to that
file whether it should have `lexical-binding' be t.

And when we get to the point that it is t by default
there will presumably be nothing to do about that wrt
autoloading.  At that point, loading a file - ANY
file, and regardless of how it is loaded (including
autoloaded) - will turn on lexical binding by default.