[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Tabs are ready? -> Let us give a definition of tabs.

From: Tom Tromey
Subject: Re: Tabs are ready? -> Let us give a definition of tabs.
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:30:53 -0700
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.93 (gnu/linux)

>>>>> "Nix" == Nix  <address@hidden> writes:

Nix> Well, yes, but that's really *because* nobody could figure out
Nix> consistent and unsurprising semantics regarding the interaction of
Nix> *-local variables with (let ...). That problem remains: it's there even
Nix> for buffer-locals, which we are surely not planning to deprecate.

What are the problems with just buffer-locals?  I thought they were
pretty well-defined.  There's some text and an example in the manual
that explains the weird case.  If there are other weird cases, I would
like to know what they are.

Once you add other kinds of locals you have to decide how they all
interact.  That is a lot harder than just defining how buffer-locals
act.  To my mind that is the major issue; it is simpler to just define
it away, and in practice I don't think it makes elisp harder to use.
Perhaps the latter point is wishful thinking?


reply via email to

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