From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tom Tromey Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Tabs are ready? -> Let us give a definition of tabs. Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:30:53 -0700 Message-ID: <87vcnan1aa.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> References: <4F2EC768.4050603@gmx.at> <4F2FAD31.9040702@gmx.at> <877h00yq7z.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <871uq7zw5c.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87k43t1mm7.fsf@spindle.srvr.nix> <87vcnbe07s.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87ehtyyl09.fsf@spindle.srvr.nix> <87wr7qohl2.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87fweewvpa.fsf@spindle.srvr.nix> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1329150682 29866 80.91.229.3 (13 Feb 2012 16:31:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:31:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs Dev , Juri Linkov , martin rudalics , PJ Weisberg , "Stephen J. Turnbull" , Alin Soare To: Nix Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 13 17:31:20 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RwyoC-00023x-2k for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:31:20 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42162 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RwyoB-0005Ty-H1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:31:19 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:46251) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rwyo9-0005Ti-0M for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:31:18 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rwyo0-0004tm-35 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:31:16 -0500 Original-Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:29157) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rwynz-0004t8-MC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:31:07 -0500 Original-Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1DGUunB000423 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:30:56 -0500 Original-Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1DGUtqU017567; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:30:55 -0500 Original-Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q1DGUrdK005841; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:30:54 -0500 X-Attribution: Tom In-Reply-To: <87fweewvpa.fsf@spindle.srvr.nix> (nix@esperi.org.uk's message of "Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:21:21 +0000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.93 (gnu/linux) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.25 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:148561 Archived-At: >>>>> "Nix" == Nix 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? Tom