From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Warnings about keymaps Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:04:28 +0900 Message-ID: <87tyyzzto3.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <83ocph26p7.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1253318098 15759 80.91.229.12 (18 Sep 2009 23:54:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:54:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Glenn Morris Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 19 01:54:51 2009 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 1MonHu-0007UR-KT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 19 Sep 2009 01:54:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57064 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MonHu-0005Bn-7R for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:54:50 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MonHo-0005AB-Kq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:54:44 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MonHj-00054F-J3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:54:43 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=35729 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MonHj-00054C-EI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:54:39 -0400 Original-Received: from mtps02.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.224]:54260) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MonHe-0005ha-5Z; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:54:34 -0400 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mtps02.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34DC1820D; Sat, 19 Sep 2009 08:54:31 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2DB2D11F61C; Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:04:28 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM 8.0.12-devo-585 under 21.5 (beta29) "garbanzo" 02b7c7189041+ XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/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:115473 Archived-At: Glenn Morris writes: > Stefan Monnier wrote: > > That's unrelated: defconst only says that the variable's binding won't > > change, not that the object it is bound to is immutable. > > I don't understand that distinction. I just read the doc of defconst: > > The intent is that neither programs nor users should ever change > this value. It's the same distinction as between "const *" and "* const" in C. The value of the variable is a constant object, but that object may be mutable if it is a container. Under this definition, if you were implementing Emacs Lisp in Emacs Lisp, it would make sense to implement the obarray as a defconst. (You probably already knew that, but your question literally says "that distinction", not "why you make that distinction".) I would like to know "why?" though. XEmacs's docstring says "The intent is that programs do not change this value, but users may." The awkward expression of the Emacs docstring suggests that the XEmacs version is indeed the original. Can somebody explain why it was changed? Is Emacs moving toward true constants? (Eg, in r/o memory?)