Subject: bug#10713: 24.0.93; doc of `local-variable-if-set-p'

From: "Drew Adams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:27:59 -0800

What's more, this sentence in the doc string (perhaps the most important
sentence) seems incorrect.  At a minimum it is not clear (to me at least).

"More precisely, this means that setting the variable (with `set' or`setq'),
while it does not have a `let'-style binding that was made in BUFFER,
will produce a buffer local binding."

First of all, why the qualification "with `set' or `setq'"?  Does it really
matter how the variable is _set_?  If you are trying to distinguish setting from
`let' binding (?) then say so.

More importantly, the phrase "while it does not have a `let'-style binding that
was made in BUFFER" makes no sense (to me at least).

`let' bindings are not made in buffers.  If this explanation is trying to say
something "more precisely" it is doing a poor job of it.

Are you perhaps really trying to say something like the following?

"The local value in BUFFER is set, provided the variable is not currently `let'
bound."

Please clarify this doc.  Try using more than one sentence to get your point
across, for a start.  That will likely help you say what you are really trying
to say (which is not clear to me).