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

[Michael Heerdegen]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> Yes, but it has to be described in English, not (only) in Lisp.

I'm not able to come with acceptable English anyway.

> (TBH, the first one is almost self-evident, and I find nothing
> surprising or unexpected in it.)

Hmm - ok, then maybe this is really not necessary to explain.  I don't
know.

> > I would not suggest such an addition if I would not have missed that
> > kind of information in the manual.
>
> Which part(s) did you miss?  AFAIU, the behavior with dynamic
> variables is described in very clear terms which make the first
> example completely described.

I mean the aspect that Stefan had fixed here: that a local variable
created inside a let-binding of the "same" variable survives the
termination of the `let' expression.  Which means in particular: `let'
seems to not restore the value of the variable because the former
binding is "shadowed" by the buffer local binding.  This is similar to
what is described in the "Warning" paragraph in the manual I cited, but
happening without changing the current buffer.

Could we maybe melt this case into this "Warning" paragraph?

Michael.