From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: pending-undo-list - should it not be buffer local? Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 12:33:03 +0200 Message-ID: <460E38DF.9060807@gmail.com> References: <460DB19B.30102@gmail.com> <460E25B2.3050001@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1175337299 22367 80.91.229.12 (31 Mar 2007 10:34:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 10:34:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs Devel To: Andreas Schwab Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 31 12:34:56 2007 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 1HXav9-0001XU-H8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 31 Mar 2007 12:34:55 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HXaxw-0000pW-Ez for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 31 Mar 2007 05:37:48 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HXawC-0007FQ-SV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 31 Mar 2007 06:36:00 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HXaw7-00076q-PA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 31 Mar 2007 06:35:59 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HXaw7-00076K-7V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 31 Mar 2007 05:35:55 -0500 Original-Received: from ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.213]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HXatJ-00089Q-Ah for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 31 Mar 2007 06:33:01 -0400 Original-Received: from c83-254-145-24.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.145.24]:62063 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HXatG-0004eB-9W; Sat, 31 Mar 2007 12:32:59 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.10) Gecko/20070221 Thunderbird/1.5.0.10 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 000729-1, 2007-03-30), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1HXatG-0004eB-9W. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net 1HXatG-0004eB-9W 38c26f45c52dcd96a8a0cb25ae961ae7 X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.6? (barebone, rare!) 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:68829 Archived-At: Andreas Schwab wrote: > "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" writes: > >> Thanks, but why should it not be permanent buffer local then? > > Why should it? The reason I am asking is that I thought that there might be a chance that a kill-all-local-variables caused caused by the undo command might erase it. I am not at all sure that this is the case, but I am currently testing and at least with that change (permanent buffer local) I can not currently see the problems I saw before. Can you see any way it can be erased by kill-all-local-variables before it should? And my original question: Can you see any problems with making this variable permanent buffer local? (And are there perhaps other variables involved in undo that should also be permanent buffer local?)