GNU bug report logs - #10713
24.0.93; doc of `local-variable-if-set-p'

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: <10713 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Subject: bug#10713: 24.0.93; doc of `local-variable-if-set-p'
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).

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.