From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Paul Eggert Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs 26.1 release branch created Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 20:23:06 -0700 Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: <14ac2d89-f6ee-e75a-ffbf-5bed6e4af58a@cs.ucla.edu> References: <20170922193511.GC7229@ACM> <20170922220700.GD7229@ACM> <20170924143939.GC5725@ACM> <20170924194139.GA6793@ACM> <20170925190357.GA4651@ACM> <855b1231-2279-4fd7-a2d6-be65435bb8be@default> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1506396205 940 195.159.176.226 (26 Sep 2017 03:23:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 03:23:25 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 To: Drew Adams , Alan Mackenzie , emacs-devel@gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii , rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 26 05:23:18 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dwgSq-00086K-4I for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 05:23:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45377 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dwgSx-0001xM-9s for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 23:23:23 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60459) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dwgSp-0001x1-3a for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 23:23:15 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dwgSo-0008Iy-7n for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 23:23:15 -0400 Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:41410) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dwgSk-0008G7-Ba; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 23:23:10 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5FFE160D81; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 20:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id JZn74MDlrM5x; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 20:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C22E160D8C; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 20:23:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id ZYYor7ppeFtt; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 20:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.9] (unknown [47.154.18.85]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E9E5E160D81; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 20:23:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 131.179.128.68 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:218797 Archived-At: Drew Adams wrote: > I thought you didn't look at `text-quoting-style' > as expressing a user preference, Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else? I don't recall expressing = an=20 opinion on the topic. In the current thread I explicitly said I didn't ca= re. > Binding the variable is _more_ flexible, not less. > Whether it is also more error prone as a result of that > I won't argue. I'm written quite a bit of of code that does text quoting, and this pract= ical=20 experience tells me that the let-binding approach is less desirable, part= ly=20 because it's more verbose, partly because because it tends to affect more= =20 behavior than it should. Theoretical arguments to the contrary are less=20 convincing. Although let-binding has its place, this isn't it.