From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Noam Postavsky Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#18059: 24.3.92; defvar and special variables Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 13:00:49 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87ha2c7lxy.fsf@web.de> <87mv0gbq33.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <87y3k0bdm9.fsf@web.de> <87inb4bbse.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <873727bkud.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <87efloa000.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <87fu5y53w5.fsf@gmail.com> <87371xlpmw.fsf@web.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1519236013 10345 195.159.176.226 (21 Feb 2018 18:00:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 18:00:13 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Michael Heerdegen , 18059@debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 21 19:00:09 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eoYgZ-0002Il-7J for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 19:00:07 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34094 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eoYib-0002eq-AZ for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 13:02:13 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56002) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eoYiV-0002eQ-AZ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 13:02:08 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eoYiQ-00046R-LZ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 13:02:07 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:46850) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eoYiQ-00046C-IU for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 13:02:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eoYiQ-00064G-55 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 13:02:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Noam Postavsky Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 18:02:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 18059 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 18059-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B18059.151923606123227 (code B ref 18059); Wed, 21 Feb 2018 18:02:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 18059) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Feb 2018 18:01:01 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54747 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eoYhO-00062I-L9 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 13:01:01 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-ot0-f177.google.com ([74.125.82.177]:39921) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eoYhM-000625-79 for 18059@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 13:00:56 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-ot0-f177.google.com with SMTP id f18so2196110otf.6 for <18059@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:00:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=AdVMrRthvgbIIR0E2WB+aLRpfkLb6Y2Gek5qmFFtLns=; b=aVFnj1SedlEG5YUeG7K38gGB/mi+Bs05befUnHSwg4Luppni+K2d1iR50Xhgd/bEWT NLR2rjr3JHX5plpPhoCEAXFg2GkB+07c1KCJKcOofGrr2YBFjf28T/6eQOvJRsNw/jNP druhdD5Tya99m/CY0hbdeRWFpK/x9tmXB4hn3NWWU/hXow/lvfIaPflCfLeCdUKtmiTt CYq2FFC8G5qcJXHIo9Wu8r8yUhW5sV9F0POy6sZaLaknkfJEjM1UAUwLWvu7EJaXXQgm DEMw9kIoL5+70rq5KhscLZkxPqf5ITkkJf8C+OliXVuKXB8PfxAEdOOdqsjMI9tBql7k /T3A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=AdVMrRthvgbIIR0E2WB+aLRpfkLb6Y2Gek5qmFFtLns=; b=H2DPPAiqyp0E3RAEX3w2cSQXzSaf9woVTpHdD6A1TuplV3f+RUCmETCJ+7B9fDjTdx KyyPZcCsaOYEc9rAZKeil3bFD4v8uxwT068jif6idIUKILCPy7n5qwowZJkc2YWOAPGA uLGrT1Wy+czOvla9LkdMceJIOuaQDCKLNbWqXaBe2+GzfDYMhXV9/mHTKZSvNIulwba3 SHz3sz7xNDwgl8Ov05aJMPfGGrVDIt/DWJRDpJ5cptKDLHWqrbPSQ05GCNMoqEkkURqu Xmh0Cj5rByS8Izb1bcOIpZz4lHcgyPmbCn9ye9ou9rVYGl416Oh+lYXM6JNHPsrPx4GO higw== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPD9vFYzibV+8hrwZt1PoGDwYAWdUeVVYNJbd2yY0w3wFRn2AC4t hm6HN2rI1OuxkRXDe4TKdZFbXCyWIqZleRMLom0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtdpoJhGJou6Wna/V7azn2+mO7Biy5jK3VRpIfYsONucNPrGadj/pumdIOiN2CLcp/q97LsRt2lLkvWesPp5W8= X-Received: by 10.157.31.122 with SMTP id x55mr3057197otx.248.1519236050257; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:00:50 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.74.59.65 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:00:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:143567 Archived-At: On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 12:15 PM, Drew Adams wrote: >> Also, to clarify, I meant specifically non-toplevel (defvar foo), not >> (defvar foo ). > > Too bad I didn't get your reply until after I spent time > digging out the latter, not the former. Yeah, I broke my rule about not sending a reply immediately. If I had waited with the draft a bit more, I probably would have included the clarification in the first message. > Not to mention lots of vacuous defvars to quiet the byte-compiler: > > (unless (> emacs-major-version 22) > (defvar display-buffer-reuse-frames)) So here, what is the use of putting it below the toplevel? Why don't you just write (defvar display-buffer-reuse-frames) ; For Emacs 22 and earlier. > I have FAR MORE examples of the former (vacuous defvars) > if you really need them. I'd like to see more examples only if they would come with different answers to my question above (why not write it at toplevel). Otherwise, no need to repeat yourself. Do you have any examples of the form (let (...) (defvar foo) ...)? That's really where the troublesome behaviour that I'm hesitating to document comes in.