From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Why is not end-of-defun-function buffer local? Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:02:18 +0100 Message-ID: <475BE75A.9030507@gmx.at> References: <4759ED09.7060601@gmail.com> <475ADCA4.1020506@gmail.com> <475B48A7.2030509@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1197205399 7995 80.91.229.12 (9 Dec 2007 13:03:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 13:03:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "Lennart Borgman \(gmail\)" , Emacs Devel To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 09 14:03:29 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1J1LoU-0005dj-WF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:03:19 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1LoD-0004vd-Py for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 08:03:01 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1J1Lnu-0004ol-90 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 08:02:42 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1J1Lnr-0004nb-N3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 08:02:41 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1Lnr-0004nV-7Q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 08:02:39 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1J1Lnq-0007Nx-Hi for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 08:02:38 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 09 Dec 2007 13:02:36 -0000 Original-Received: from N711P018.adsl.highway.telekom.at (EHLO [62.47.32.210]) [62.47.32.210] by mail.gmx.net (mp033) with SMTP; 09 Dec 2007 14:02:36 +0100 X-Authenticated: #14592706 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+ucMBCOxeumPyONVckBnZ446Al9lkS5pSaKuOpxy oWA5NYhk2SCTfc User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, en-us, en In-Reply-To: X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:84918 Archived-At: > 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. Has this to be carved in stone? Why should with (defvar foo 1) (make-variable-buffer-local 'foo) the form below not set the default value of foo (let ((foo 2)) (setq-default foo 3)) and the following form (progn (setq foo 4) (let ((foo 2)) (setq-default foo 3))) set it? Isn't code depending on one or the other behavior silly anyway?