[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Specifiers
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Specifiers |
Date: |
Fri, 30 May 2008 16:14:42 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) |
Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:
>>> Yes, pretty much, except we don't have to worry about combinations of
>>> buffer-local with other forms of foo-local at the same time (well,
>>> supposedly we have to worry about it for buffer-local + frame-local,
>>> but we already know we don't handle that correctly).
>> That's supposed to be an advantage?
>
> What does "That" refer to?
> Not having to worry about combinations is an advantage, yes.
Knowing that we don't handle something correctly already is an advantage
over a scheme that has a chance of offering well-defined behavior?
--
David Kastrup
- Re: face-remapping patch, (continued)
- Specifiers (was: face-remapping patch), Stefan Monnier, 2008/05/29
- Re: Specifiers, David Kastrup, 2008/05/29
- Re: Specifiers, Stefan Monnier, 2008/05/29
- Re: Specifiers, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/05/29
- Re: Specifiers (was: face-remapping patch), Richard M Stallman, 2008/05/29
- Re: Specifiers, Stefan Monnier, 2008/05/29
- Re: Specifiers, David Kastrup, 2008/05/30
- Re: Specifiers, Stefan Monnier, 2008/05/30
- Re: Specifiers,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: Specifiers, Stefan Monnier, 2008/05/30
- Re: Specifiers, Richard M Stallman, 2008/05/31
- Re: face-remapping patch, Stefan Monnier, 2008/05/29
- Re: face-remapping patch, David Kastrup, 2008/05/29
Re: face-remapping patch, Miles Bader, 2008/05/29
Re: face-remapping patch, Chong Yidong, 2008/05/28