bug#65209: 30.0.50; Unexpected behaviour of setq-local

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de>
> Cc: Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann@gmail.com>,
>   65209@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2023 06:16:42 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > > > `setq' sets the buffer local binding, not the global value the `let'
> > > > binding refers to.
> 
> > I guess this bug can be closed, then?  Or is there anything left to
> > do?
> 
> After thinking more about it:
> 
> I could explain the behavior of Gerd's recipes using the manual, but it
> doesn't explain the state in my above example _after_ the `let' has
> been left.
> 
> The manual has a *Warning* section about mixing `let', buffer-local
> variables, and changing the current buffer.  But it doesn't explain what
> happens in a single buffer when you `let'-bind a (declared) variable,
> make it local inside the `let', and finish the `let'.  Is the variable
> still buffer-local afterwards, or does `let' remove the
> buffer-localness?  With other words, is leaving a `let' the same as a
> `setq' to the remembered value, or is it more?
> 
> Do we answer that question somewhere?  If not, I suggest to add that,
> maybe as an example before the *Warning* section.

I added Stefan to this discussion near its beginning, but you've
removed his address from the CC list.  I've now re-added him back in
the hope that he can shed some light on the convoluted case you
describe.