From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Clarification on using safe-local-variable-values Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 10:46:27 -0500 Message-ID: References: <200603081955.k28JtxHO009985@chls308.ch.intel.com> <87oe0gu1kb.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <17423.16884.499749.8016@chls308.ch.intel.com> <87u0a8a9ki.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <17423.28072.2696.723424@chls308.ch.intel.com> <87zmk05vrz.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87irqn659u.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <200603102357.k2ANvtW07688@raven.dms.auburn.edu> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1142192028 25654 80.91.229.2 (12 Mar 2006 19:33:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 19:33:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: amscott1@sedona.ch.intel.com, cyd@stupidchicken.com, storm@cua.dk, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Mar 12 20:33:44 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FIW2H-0005tY-LR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 12 Mar 2006 20:15:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FIW2H-0002D8-1X for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 12 Mar 2006 14:15:25 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FI6IY-0001tL-Ff for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Mar 2006 10:46:30 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FI6IX-0001sW-NZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Mar 2006 10:46:30 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FI6IX-0001sJ-IO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Mar 2006 10:46:29 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FI6M5-0005y1-Ch for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Mar 2006 10:50:09 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1FI6IV-0001k8-S7; Sat, 11 Mar 2006 10:46:27 -0500 Original-To: Luc Teirlinck In-reply-to: <200603102357.k2ANvtW07688@raven.dms.auburn.edu> (message from Luc Teirlinck on Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:57:55 -0600 (CST)) 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:51526 Archived-At: I believe that Richard decided that _every_ variable should be considered risky, except when explicitly marked safe. I decided that every variable should be considered _somewhat_ risky, if not explicitly marked safe. This does not _necessarily_ mean there is no such thing as degrees of risk, so it does not _necessarily_ mean we should eliminate the concept of marking a variable as risky. I am not sure that the current way of handling variables marked risky is really best. But it might be useful. So let's leave it alone, for now. There is no need to change it.