From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Nick Roberts Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: locals.texi Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 11:33:01 +1200 Message-ID: <17578.64173.888606.837722@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> References: <17571.1885.899074.211162@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1152056077 26659 80.91.229.2 (4 Jul 2006 23:34:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 23:34:37 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jul 05 01:34:35 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxuPS-0001np-Uk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 05 Jul 2006 01:34:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxuPS-0002kJ-DZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 19:34:26 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FxuPG-0002jX-5p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 19:34:14 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FxuPF-0002ih-8h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 19:34:13 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxuPF-0002ie-2S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 19:34:13 -0400 Original-Received: from [202.37.101.8] (helo=viper.snap.net.nz) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1Fxucz-0005Qj-92; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 19:48:25 -0400 Original-Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (p276-tnt1.snap.net.nz [202.124.111.22]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F42F76E9E0; Wed, 5 Jul 2006 11:34:13 +1200 (NZST) Original-Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 500) id A75061D3550; Wed, 5 Jul 2006 11:33:03 +1200 (NZST) Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.0.50.24 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:56536 Archived-At: Richard Stallman writes: > > 1. It is always cleaner to use separate calls to make-local-variable > > and setq. > > That's not true. *You* may always find it cleaner, but it's far from > a general truth. > > I think that separate calls are always cleaner. > You're entitled to your opinion, of course. I guess if the make-local-variable and setq get separated then it might not be immediately obvious that the variable is buffer-local. However, my original question was that with a variable like font-lock-defaults, that automatically becomes buffer-local in each buffer, I presumably don't need to use make-local-variable at all? -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob