From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: Emacs Devel <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Why is not end-of-defun-function buffer local?
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 04:04:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <475B5B3E.3010708@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <jwv63z8egth.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org>
Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>>> Looking at some code that is a bit older it looks like some of it uses
>>>> make-local-variable where it is not needed since the variables in question
>>>> are always buffer local. From that I draw the conclusion that the code in
>>>> Emacs uses make-variable-buffer-local more often now. Is not that the case?
>>> make-variable-buffer-local has the following downsides:
>>> 1 - it cannot be reverted.
>>> 2 - it may be done too late.
>>> 3 - when you see `setq' it's not obvious that the setting is buffer-local
>>> unless you remember seeing the call to make-variable-buffer-local.
>>> The second problem may also explain what you're seeing: some code may
>>> set a variable before the make-variable-buffer-local gets run.
>>> It's actually "common" to introduce bugs this way, because people see
>>> "this is automatically buffer-local" in the C-h v info, so they just use
>>> `setq' without realizing that the setq may occur before the package
>>> gets loaded.
>>> make-variable-buffer-local is not evil, but make-local-variable is much
>>> tamer and more explicit, and it works just as well in most cases.
>
>
>> Thanks, that was a good explanation. Why not add this to the doc string of
>> make-variable-buffer-local?
>
> Oh, and since I've been looking at the low-level code that handles
> variable lookup and things like that, there's another reason:
> make-variable-buffer-local has a very subtle semantics which requires
> pretty ugly and debatable C code.
> More specifically, the problem is to decide *when* to make a variable
> buffer-local. I.e. Setting the variable via `setq' should make it
> buffer-local, but setting it with `let' shouldn't. But
>
> (let ((var 1))
> (setq var 2))
>
> should not make `var' buffer-local either, because the `setq' is
> "protected" within a let. OTOH
>
> (let ((var 1))
> (with-current-buffer <otherbuf>
> (setq var 2)))
>
> should make `var' buffer-local in <otherbuf> unless the code is itself
> run within a `let' which was itself done in <otherbuf>. Yuck!
>
> So every `setq' on a variable that has been make-variable-buffer-local
> may require walking up the current list of `let' bindings to decide
> whether to make the variable buffer-local. Yup, that's right:
> the (setq var 2) will take time proportional to the stack depth :-(
>
> And in order to be able to walk up the stack and decide which let
> binding might be relevant, the runtime representation of some
> let-bindings requires an extra cons-cell, which is not used for
> anything else.
Perhaps make-variable-buffer-local var could be treated like this:
1) When entering (let ((var 1)) make a buffer local copy of the variable
just as if (make-local-variable 'var) was called before let.
2) When leaving (let ((var 1))...) delete the buffer local copy of the
variable if it has the default value.
That is of course a slightly different semantic, but I wonder if it matters.
The advantage is that var could be treated just as if it was made buffer
local with make-local-variable.
I might be misunderstanding something, of course, since I do not know
this code.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-12-09 3:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-12-08 1:02 Why is not end-of-defun-function buffer local? Lennart Borgman (gmail)
2007-12-08 2:18 ` Stefan Monnier
2007-12-08 18:04 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail)
2007-12-08 20:16 ` Stefan Monnier
2007-12-09 1:45 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail)
2007-12-09 2:45 ` Stefan Monnier
2007-12-09 3:04 ` Lennart Borgman (gmail) [this message]
2007-12-09 13:02 ` martin rudalics
2007-12-10 5:13 ` Stefan Monnier
2007-12-11 12:53 ` martin rudalics
2007-12-11 14:58 ` Stefan Monnier
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=475B5B3E.3010708@gmail.com \
--to=lennart.borgman@gmail.com \
--cc=emacs-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).