[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: please make line-move-visual nil

From: Drew Adams
Subject: RE: please make line-move-visual nil
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:19:27 -0700

> > > > I proposed making the variable always buffer-local.
> > 
> > SM> There would be no benefit to it:
> > SM> (set (make-local-variable <foo>) <bar>)
> > SM> is the standard way for major modes to set variables.
> > 
> > Irrelevant. This is not about how to set the variable, but 
> > whether the variable should always be buffer-local.
> >
> > `truncate-lines', `word-wrap', and similar variables are
> > all always buffer-local.
> `truncate-lines' is always buffer-local. for historical reasons.
> `word-wrap' is buffer-local by mistake.

Why do you consider the latter a mistake? Is the former a mistake too, but won't
be fixed? Why not, if it's misguided?

And `goal-column', `fill-column, `fill-prefix', `left-margin', `comment-column',
`tab-width', `require-final-newline'? Are they also mistakes?

Put it another way: Which variables that have to do with wrapping, filling,
truncating, target columns, and line/buffer endings are *NOT* always
buffer-local? Which are not mistakes?

And what's the _reason_ you call them mistakes? It's easy to dismiss -
"historical", "mistake" - but why shouldn't they be always buffer-local? What
are the criteria for your judgment?

The only reason you gave was that major modes can make variables buffer local if
they need to. That's doesn't speak to why they would or would not do that.

And if that were the answer, then we would not have _any_ variables that are
always buffer-local - we would just leave it up to major modes to make them
buffer-local as needed. Why don't we expect `comment-column' (for instance) to
simply be made buffer-local by each major mode that needs that?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]