From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tom Tromey Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Tabs are ready? -> Let us give a definition of tabs. Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:35:54 -0700 Message-ID: <8739abn8b9.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> References: <4F2EC768.4050603@gmx.at> <4F2FAD31.9040702@gmx.at> <877h00yq7z.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <871uq7zw5c.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87k43t1mm7.fsf@spindle.srvr.nix> <87vcnbe07s.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87ehtyyl09.fsf@spindle.srvr.nix> <87wr7qohl2.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87fweewvpa.fsf@spindle.srvr.nix> <87vcnan1aa.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87r4xyva7x.fsf@spindle.srvr.nix> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1329338182 23104 80.91.229.3 (15 Feb 2012 20:36:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 20:36:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs Dev , Juri Linkov , martin rudalics , PJ Weisberg , "Stephen J. Turnbull" , Alin Soare To: Nix Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 15 21:36:19 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RxlaM-0001eN-Rf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:36:18 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33694 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RxlaM-00085T-1q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:36:18 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:50525) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RxlaF-00083k-QY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:36:15 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RxlaB-0002wA-Im for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:36:11 -0500 Original-Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:6016) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RxlaB-0002vv-BG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:36:07 -0500 Original-Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1FKZwrE020626 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:35:58 -0500 Original-Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1FKZvMd012322; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:35:58 -0500 Original-Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q1FKZsjI016079; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:35:54 -0500 X-Attribution: Tom In-Reply-To: <87r4xyva7x.fsf@spindle.srvr.nix> (nix@esperi.org.uk's message of "Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:50:42 +0000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.93 (gnu/linux) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.22 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:148631 Archived-At: >>>>> "Nix" == Nix writes: Nix> See, the intuitive definition of buffer-locals would have them nesting Nix> just underneath the global scope, so they would never ever supplant let Nix> bindings. I can't imagine anyone actually wanting the current semantics: Nix> they are purely an implementation artifact. I can't imagine it either; but at the same time, changing anything seems dangerous, especially given that the current behavior is explicitly documented. Nix> Can you recall any elisp code that establishes let bindings, switches Nix> buffers, then operates under the assumption that some or all of its let Nix> bindings or parameters may have changed? I can't recall any, but I don't think that is a reasonable test. Nix> More worryingly, if you choose the wrong name for your buffer-local Nix> variable, parameters and local bindings will smash it out of hand, with Nix> no warnings at all. *This* is easy to contrive a test for: just try Nix> assigning a local value to a buffer-local variable named 'start': it Nix> doesn't even survive a round of C-h v and quit-window! More code should use lexical binding; or we should have CL-style packages; or both :-) Tom