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: Why is not end-of-defun-function buffer local? Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 02:45:11 +0100 Message-ID: <475B48A7.2030509@gmail.com> References: <4759ED09.7060601@gmail.com> <475ADCA4.1020506@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: ger.gmane.org 1197164730 21535 80.91.229.12 (9 Dec 2007 01:45:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 01:45:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs Devel To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 09 02:45:40 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 1J1BEh-0005yz-HV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 02:45:39 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1BEQ-0003W1-5b for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 20:45:22 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1J1BEM-0003Tf-DS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 20:45:18 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1J1BEK-0003Pm-K2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 20:45:17 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1BEK-0003Pd-HY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 20:45:16 -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 1J1BEJ-00084w-V5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 20:45:16 -0500 Original-Received: from c83-254-148-228.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.148.228]:64263 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1J1BEI-0002Jo-7b; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 02:45:14 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 071208-0, 2007-12-08), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Originating-IP: 83.254.148.228 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1J1BEI-0002Jo-7b. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net 1J1BEI-0002Jo-7b f189150771a39695695d9e5bab5e29db X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: 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:84903 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier wrote: >> Looking at some code that is a bit older it looks like some of it uses >> make-local-variable where it is not needed since the variables in question >> are always buffer local. From that I draw the conclusion that the code in >> Emacs uses make-variable-buffer-local more often now. Is not that the case? > > make-variable-buffer-local has the following downsides: > 1 - it cannot be reverted. > 2 - it may be done too late. > 3 - when you see `setq' it's not obvious that the setting is buffer-local > unless you remember seeing the call to make-variable-buffer-local. > The second problem may also explain what you're seeing: some code may > set a variable before the make-variable-buffer-local gets run. > It's actually "common" to introduce bugs this way, because people see > "this is automatically buffer-local" in the C-h v info, so they just use > `setq' without realizing that the setq may occur before the package > gets loaded. > make-variable-buffer-local is not evil, but make-local-variable is much > tamer and more explicit, and it works just as well in most cases. Thanks, that was a good explanation. Why not add this to the doc string of make-variable-buffer-local?