Re: Mis-features of let (was Defadvice use)

["rgb" <rbielaws@i1.net>]

> bla bla

Yes.  Communication with 'inteligent beings' is, for me, quite often
an extreemly difficult and error prone task.  Believe it or not I
spent over 2 hrs on that post trying to be clear. 3 on this.

> Another way is to post here an example of a specific behavior which
> you find counter intuitive (basically write a bug report, but asking
> why it works that way, rather than claiming it's a bug ;-).

I didn't say it *was* a bug, but "a bug waiting to happen".  Perhaps
thats an idiom you're not familiar with.  Sorry.  But my other
statement should have made it clear I wasn't claiming it was a bug:
"Since it appears to be by design, I'd be terribly curious to see any
archive of discussions concerning why this is appropriate behavior."

> It'd also be helpful to cite relevant parts of the elisp manual
> which lead you to your mis-understanding, so we can try and improve
> it.

So your saying "no mention in any Elisp manual section that covers
plists or symbol function cells about this behavior" isn't specific
enough?  I'm sure your not implying I should have actually listed
every section that refers to either of these subjects so I can't tell
what more you expected me to cite.

I also expressed "The `feature' is only _implied_, not documented."
IOW, no place (as in anywhere in the user or reference manual) do I
find a warning or even a passing mention that a symbol, created by let
or let* is handled differently from a symbol created through set,
fset, any of the def... forms, intern, etc.

>From what you've said (and experiments point to you being correct), no
one should ever use put, fset, setplist etc on any symbol whose origin
might be let or let* since the resulting behavior would apparently be
undefined (as evidenced by the example in my previous post).

Hence, a bug waiting to happen.