[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Risky local variable mechanism
From: |
Richard M. Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: Risky local variable mechanism |
Date: |
Thu, 09 Feb 2006 12:47:34 -0500 |
Yes, something like that. Except that it's the list of values that *the
user* has deemed safe (there'd also be a corresponding alist of values the
user has deemed undesirable).
The maintainers/authors wouldn't touch this list. Instead they'd set
special properties on the variable's symbol, which would either be t (to say
that any value is safe) or a predicate which checks a candidate value
for safety.
That sounds like a good plan to me.
- Re: Risky local variable mechanism, (continued)
- Re: Risky local variable mechanism, Luc Teirlinck, 2006/02/08
- Re: Risky local variable mechanism, Stefan Monnier, 2006/02/08
- Re: Risky local variable mechanism, Luc Teirlinck, 2006/02/08
- Re: Risky local variable mechanism, Stefan Monnier, 2006/02/08
- Re: Risky local variable mechanism, Luc Teirlinck, 2006/02/08
- Re: Risky local variable mechanism, Stefan Monnier, 2006/02/08
- Re: Risky local variable mechanism,
Richard M. Stallman <=
- Re: Risky local variable mechanism, Richard M. Stallman, 2006/02/09
- Re: Risky local variable mechanism, Luc Teirlinck, 2006/02/10
- Re: Risky local variable mechanism, Juri Linkov, 2006/02/08
- Disabled commands (was: Risky local variable mechanism), Stefan Monnier, 2006/02/08
- Re: Disabled commands (was: Risky local variable mechanism), Richard M. Stallman, 2006/02/09
- Re: Disabled commands, Stefan Monnier, 2006/02/09
- Re: Disabled commands, Miles Bader, 2006/02/09
- Re: Disabled commands, Eli Zaretskii, 2006/02/10
- Re: Disabled commands, Bill Wohler, 2006/02/13
- Re: Disabled commands, Kim F. Storm, 2006/02/13