[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: frame-local variables weirdness
From: |
Juanma Barranquero |
Subject: |
Re: frame-local variables weirdness |
Date: |
Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:37:34 +0200 |
On 10/11/07, Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote:
> I'd much rather disallow variables that are both buffer-local and frame-local.
I think the problem is between frame-local and automatically
buffer-local variables, not just buffer-local ones.
> What is the use-case?
I don't have a use case, and I don't really care one way or the other,
but they have been documented to work for a long time. From
"Frame-Local Variables":
Buffer-local bindings take precedence over frame-local bindings.
Thus, consider a variable `foo': if the current buffer has a
buffer-local binding for `foo', that binding is active; otherwise, if
the selected frame has a frame-local binding for `foo', that binding is
active; otherwise, the default binding of `foo' is active.
And they do work, if swap_in_symval_forwarding is not called before
`make-variable-buffer-local'.
How do you propose disallowing them? By fixing the documentation, or
are you saying that setting a variable to be both will throw an error?
Juanma
- Re: frame-local variables weirdness, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/10/11
- Re: frame-local variables weirdness, Richard Stallman, 2007/10/12
- Re: frame-local variables weirdness, Stefan Monnier, 2007/10/12
- Re: frame-local variables weirdness, Richard Stallman, 2007/10/14
- Re: frame-local variables weirdness, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/10/14
- Re: frame-local variables weirdness, David Kastrup, 2007/10/14
- Re: frame-local variables weirdness, Richard Stallman, 2007/10/15
- Re: frame-local variables weirdness, Stefan Monnier, 2007/10/15
- Re: frame-local variables weirdness, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2007/10/17