[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: question about permanent-local

From: Lennart Borgman
Subject: Re: question about permanent-local
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:51:28 +0200

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:18 PM, Stefan
Monnier<address@hidden> wrote:
>> What I'm getting at is this: isn't there a use case for something more
>> fine-grained that just putting `permanent-local' on the symbol, which
>> inhibits killing in _all_ buffers?
> Yes, there are such use cases, but until now they've been sufficiently
> rare that we don't have enough experience to know what alternative might
> be useful.  There's only one exception: for buffer-local hooks, we have
> now refined the permanent-local property so it can apply to specific
> entries on a hook rather than the hook as a whole.

This was added because it was useful for multi major modes (like
mumamo). There are definitely other cases there where more refinements
can be very useful. However I am leaning towards that the long term
solution will include a light weight buffer concept too. That would be
a "buffer without a buffer", it should just hold "local" variables
associated with a major mode in some way. (I wrote "local" because it
will not be exactly equal to buffer local variables.)

reply via email to

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