>
> > I think this is the wrong way to approach this. What counts here are the
> > benefits: by avoiding global mutable state we make code that is easier to
> > reason about, easier to test, etc.
>
> What about the costs?  Emacs has a large state, including variable
> numbers of buffers, variable variables (libraries can be loaded at any
> time), variable properties and text properties, ....
>
> What you're asserting, I think, is that there is a better way to house
> this state rather than "globally".  No details of this other way have
> been forthcoming.
>
> > There is simply no real argument for using global mutable state when we
> can
> > avoid it, .....
>
> I suspect that in Emacs we can't.  Or if we could, it would be at too
> great a cost.
>

Yes, probably that in Emacs the costs would be too big. My point was about
you defending global mutable state as something that is fine to use all the
time when it is not.

Anyway, this subject is not really welcome and wouldn't be very productive
anyway, so I'll remain silent on that issue.

Thanks,
Philippe