RE: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-25 6bd9d69: Fix documentation of 'global-disable-point-adjustment'

[Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> > >> Why did you replace "sets" with "binds"?
> > > Because that's how I tend to think about the act of giving a value to
> > > a variable in Emacs Lisp.
> >
> > OK.  To me, the fact that disable-point-adjustment needs to be setq'd by
> > the command rather than let-bound is an important point (I'd expect this
> > to surprise many coders since the usual way for a command to affect the
> > behavior of Emacs "for this command only" is to let-bind a variable), so
> > I find the new wording to encourage confusion rather than trying to
> > avoid it.
> 
> If this is confusing, I will changing it back.  What do others think?

I agree with Stefan here.  Generally use "set" for assignment 
(regardless of whether the symbol has already been bound in any
way).  Use "bind" for a `let' binding.

It's true that we also speak of a symbol being unbound or bound
depending on whether its value cell is void.  But most of the
uses of "bound" and "bind" for symbols in Emacs have to do with
`let' bindings.

However, if it is important in this particular context to make
clear that "disable-point-adjustment needs to be setq'd by the
command rather than let-bound" then I'd say that, to remove any
ambiguity.