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: frame-local variables weirdness Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 05:01:11 -0400 Message-ID: References: <858x65lh4m.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <2bfd4e060710171029g30a62313naf31c5363d85d6ca@mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1193044162 29093 80.91.229.12 (22 Oct 2007 09:09:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:09:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: lekktu@gmail.com, stephen@xemacs.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 22 11:09:22 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 1IjtHl-0006ev-6k for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:09:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IjtHd-0007Li-Am for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 05:09:13 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ijt9w-0000ao-6p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 05:01:16 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ijt9u-0000YZ-Eq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 05:01:15 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ijt9t-0000Y7-Ls for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 05:01:13 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ijt9s-0005kI-Hi for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 05:01:12 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ijt9r-0000qb-M4; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 05:01:11 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Sun, 21 Oct 2007 10:24:37 -0400) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:81447 Archived-At: > The specifier approach requires new functions just to look at or > set the value in the current binding. You mean you have to use `specifier-set' and `specifier-value' instead of `set' and `symbol-value'? Well, yes. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me. It is an added inconvenience. > It also has the big limitation that all references to the value must be > specially written to access a specifier. Right, just like right now they're specifically written to access a variable. Accessing a variable is not "specifically written"; it is the normal thing to do in Emacs. I hope that this makes my decision clear, but in any case it is a firm decision.