Re: obarray

[Emanuel Berg]

Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes:

> And many symbols that are variables are just local
> variables internal to functions (not to be confused
> with buffer-local variables); these shouldn't show up
> in describe-variable.

As in what you get with `let', `labels', and the defun
parameters?

> That's why the completing-read collection that
> describe-variable uses checks whether the symbol is
> bound or has a variable-documentation property.

Of course, in describe-variable, they define a variable
as:

- in obarray (always)
- is bound (`boundp') *and* is not a :keyword
  (`keywordp'), *or*
- has variable-style documentation (definition 1)

Then, "v", in the interactive string, a variable is
"[a] symbol that is `custom-variable-p'." (2)

For my purposes, (1) is better, which makes sense since
my defun implements a (small) subset of
describe-function (instead the difference is how the
data is communicated with less noise, faster).

But: Why is (2) used in the interactive string? Is
there an advantage to (1) in this setting, *or* is this
something that just "is"? If (1) is a sensible
definition, is it all the same uncommon (as there is no
`is-variable-p' or the like, to encapsulate it, *and*
there is no way to get it into the interactive string
without this sort of big workaround)?

I don't say we should change describe-variable for
aesthetic purposes (surest way to break functional
code) but it is interesting if this is something that
"happened" or if anyone can see something beneath.

-- 
Emanuel Berg, programmer-for-rent. CV, projects, etc at uXu
underground experts united:  http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573