From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: pending-undo-list - should it not be buffer local?
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 13:36:37 +0200
Message-ID: <460E47C5.5080308@gmail.com>
References: <460DB19B.30102@gmail.com>
	<jetzw125cf.fsf@sykes.suse.de>	<460E25B2.3050001@gmail.com>
	<jed52p206m.fsf@sykes.suse.de>	<460E38DF.9060807@gmail.com>
	<jeslblznv6.fsf@sykes.suse.de>	<460E3E83.3080408@gmail.com>
	<jer6r5llaa.fsf@sykes.suse.de>
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 1175341007 32590 80.91.229.12 (31 Mar 2007 11:36:47 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 11:36:47 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: Emacs Devel <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
To: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 31 13:36:39 2007
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
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 1HXbst-00032M-Hh
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 31 Mar 2007 13:36:39 +0200
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HXbvg-0005SQ-Sx
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 31 Mar 2007 06:39:32 -0500
Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HXbvd-0005S6-Mr
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 31 Mar 2007 07:39:29 -0400
Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HXbvb-0005Rq-ID
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 31 Mar 2007 07:39:28 -0400
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HXbvb-0005Rn-E5
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 31 Mar 2007 06:39:27 -0500
Original-Received: from ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.212])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>) id 1HXbsn-0007Zn-5o
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 31 Mar 2007 07:36:33 -0400
Original-Received: from c83-254-145-24.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.145.24]:62361
	helo=[127.0.0.1])
	by ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63)
	(envelope-from <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>)
	id 1HXbsl-0003Qr-4a; Sat, 31 Mar 2007 13:36:31 +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: <jer6r5llaa.fsf@sykes.suse.de>
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 000729-1, 2007-03-30), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1HXbsl-0003Qr-4a.
X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net 1HXbsl-0003Qr-4a
	894eafb36fc96ffab39fcaf8b706a1a6
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." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=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:68835
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/68835>

Andreas Schwab wrote:
> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Are you sure this true even if kill-all-local-variables are called from
>> post-command-hook or from a timer? If so can you please explain to me why?
> 
> It doesn't matter anyway, since pending-undo-list isn't buffer-local in
> the first place.

Thanks, looks like a good argument here.