[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#10713: 24.0.93; doc of `local-variable-if-set-p'
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
bug#10713: 24.0.93; doc of `local-variable-if-set-p' |
Date: |
Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:27:59 -0800 |
What's more, this sentence in the doc string (perhaps the most important
sentence) seems incorrect. At a minimum it is not clear (to me at least).
"More precisely, this means that setting the variable (with `set' or`setq'),
while it does not have a `let'-style binding that was made in BUFFER,
will produce a buffer local binding."
First of all, why the qualification "with `set' or `setq'"? Does it really
matter how the variable is _set_? If you are trying to distinguish setting from
`let' binding (?) then say so.
More importantly, the phrase "while it does not have a `let'-style binding that
was made in BUFFER" makes no sense (to me at least).
`let' bindings are not made in buffers. If this explanation is trying to say
something "more precisely" it is doing a poor job of it.
Are you perhaps really trying to say something like the following?
"The local value in BUFFER is set, provided the variable is not currently `let'
bound."
Please clarify this doc. Try using more than one sentence to get your point
across, for a start. That will likely help you say what you are really trying
to say (which is not clear to me).