GNU bug report logs - #26624
26.0.50; Generalized variable `buffer-local-value' does't restore local flag

Previous Next

Full log

Message #35 received at 26624 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Noam Postavsky <npostavs <at> users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: michael_heerdegen <at> web.de, p.stephani2 <at> gmail.com, 26624 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26624: 26.0.50;
 Generalized variable `buffer-local-value' does't restore local flag
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 10:50:36 +0300

> From: Noam Postavsky <npostavs <at> users.sourceforge.net>
> Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 13:43:20 -0400
> Cc: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>, 26624 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> Philipp Stephani <p.stephani2 <at> gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Noam Postavsky <npostavs <at> users.sourceforge.net> schrieb am So., 24.
> > Sep. 2017 um 17:44 Uhr:
> >
> >     Philipp Stephani <p.stephani2 <at> gmail.com> writes:
> >    
> >     > * lisp/emacs-lisp/gv.el (buffer-local-value): Remove.
> >    
> >     Is it possible to just give an obsolete warning first?
> >
> >
> > I don't think it's possible in the sense of `make-obsolete' because
> > the expander is not a named function.
> > It would be possible to use `display-warning' within the body of the
> > setter, but that would only annoy users.
> > If necessary, we might add additional code to the `setf' macro to
> > warn about this form in particular during byte compilation.
> 
> IMO, a compilation warning would be appropriate.

I agree.  Removing some feature without due warning is not something
we should do, except in very rare cases (which this one isn't).

Previous Next

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