Re: Local Variables difference between 21.4.8 and 21.4.9/10

Andy> Hmmn, ok. Can someone tell me what the actual problem is? Rodnay always wants the local variables reinitialized. Andy> In many cases you don't want the local variables changed. I dispute that. We have _always_ reinitted the local variables on buffer reversion. I think it is very reasonable to suppose that in most cases if the buffer is being reverted, the user expects (and, if he cares, wants) reinitialization. Had I realized disabling this kind of thing was going to be an effect, I would have vetoed the patch, which was advertised as optimizing away unnecessary operations (like re-highlighting an unchanged buffer). Changing zero-user-cost as-documented behavior 8 patchlevels into a public release series is not appropriate. It is on you to safely (for the majority of users who have never complained about the traditional implementation of this feature) disable various aspects of the traditional revert algorithm. I want the "optimization" to default off in the future. My preferred implementation is to revert `revert-buffer' to 21.1's implementation, rename the current 21.4 function, and defcustom revert-buffer-function with optimized-revert-buffer as an explicit documented choice option. However that's up to you. -- Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Ask not how you can "do" free software business; ask what your business can "do for" free software.