[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: let vs. buffer local bindings
From: |
Kim F. Storm |
Subject: |
Re: let vs. buffer local bindings |
Date: |
10 May 2002 17:31:58 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2.50 |
Andreas Schwab <address@hidden> writes:
> address@hidden (Kim F. Storm) writes:
>
> |> Gareth Owen <address@hidden> has found a peculiar
> |> interference between let and buffer local bindings.
>
> *Note Introduction to Buffer-Local Variables: (elisp)Intro to
> Buffer-Local.
>
> *Warning:* When a variable has buffer-local values in one or more
> buffers, you can get Emacs very confused by binding the variable with
> `let', changing to a different current buffer in which a different
> binding is in effect, and then exiting the `let'. This can scramble
> the values of the buffer-local and default bindings.
>
> To preserve your sanity, avoid using a variable in that way. If you
> use `save-excursion' around each piece of code that changes to a
> different current buffer, you will not have this problem (*note
> Excursions::).
>
I see.
But I had got the impression that the following changes to specbind
were supposed to remove that limitation.... I'm obviously mistaken:
2001-07-05 Gerd Moellmann <address@hidden>
* eval.c (specbind): Additionally record the buffer that was
current when a buffer-local or frame-local variable was bound.
2001-07-03 Gerd Moellmann <address@hidden>
* eval.c (specbind): If SYMBOL has a frame-local binding, record
the frame on the binding stack. Change format of entries for
local bindings on the binding stack to '(SYMBOL . WHERE)'.
(unbind_to): Handle unbinding a frame-local variable.
--
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk