[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Rant - Elisp terminology is deceptive
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Rant - Elisp terminology is deceptive |
Date: |
Sat, 24 Jan 2015 12:03:08 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Kelly Dean <address@hidden> writes:
> Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>> Buffer-local values are global values in the usual
>> sense that they are instance-wide and can be accessed in local context
>> if not shadowed by let-bindings and the like.
>
> Function parameters (or a closure's parameters and environment
> variables) are global variables in the sense that they're
> ‟instance-wide” (within the entire function or closure) and can be
> accessed in local context if not shadowed by let-bindings.
>
> But «within an entire function or closure» isn't really instance-wide?
> Well neither is «within an entire buffer».
We are not talking about "within an entire buffer". Emacs has a notion
of a "current buffer". There is no hierarchy or stack or nesting
involved: the current buffer setting swaps out variables in global
scope. It does not matter which module or buffer or context your global
variables have been defined in.
> The global environment is the outermost one. A buffer's environment is
> not.
That confusion seems to be the most compelling reason _not_ to mess with
the terminology in order not to cause additional confusion. A buffer
does not have an "environment". It has a list of global variable values
to substitute whenever it is made current. There is always exactly one
current buffer. You cannot _not_ have a current buffer:
emacs -Q --batch --eval '(message "%S" (current-buffer))'
#<buffer *scratch*>
> There's only one global environment. There can be multiple buffers and
> multiple closures, each with its own environment. ‟Buffer-local” is a
> perfectly good term for buffer-locals. Calling them ‟global” would be
> misleading, and it's good that Emacs doesn't do that.
>
> ‟Global” is the right term for globals.
And buffer-local variables _are_ buffer-local versions of _global_
variables. They are not scoped. With setq-default you are not setting
a value that is in any manner more or less global than a buffer-local
setting. It is a separate symbol slot only accessible via special
commands or when no buffer-local setting exists.
--
David Kastrup
- Rant - Elisp terminology is deceptive, Kelly Dean, 2015/01/22
- Re: Rant - Elisp terminology is deceptive, Stefan Monnier, 2015/01/23
- Re: Rant - Elisp terminology is deceptive, Kelly Dean, 2015/01/23
- Re: Rant - Elisp terminology is deceptive, Óscar Fuentes, 2015/01/23
- Re: Rant - Elisp terminology is deceptive, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/01/23
- Re: Rant - Elisp terminology is deceptive, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/01/24
- Re: Rant - Elisp terminology is deceptive, Kelly Dean, 2015/01/24
- Re: Rant - Elisp terminology is deceptive, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/01/24
- Re: Rant - Elisp terminology is deceptive, Kelly Dean, 2015/01/24
- Re: Rant - Elisp terminology is deceptive,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: Rant - Elisp terminology is deceptive, Kelly Dean, 2015/01/24
- Re: Rant - Elisp terminology is deceptive, David Kastrup, 2015/01/25
- Re: Rant - Elisp terminology is deceptive, Kelly Dean, 2015/01/25
- Re: Rant - Elisp terminology is deceptive, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2015/01/26