Re: risky local variable mechanism

[Luc Teirlinck]

Jonathan Yavner wrote:

   unsafep.el (used by SES) calls risky-local-variable-p with NIL as the 
   second argument, because it doesn't know yet what value will be 
   assigned.

If the current risky-local-variable-p is too unreliable for
`enable-local-eval' to such a degree that an urgent fix is needed, is
it really reliable enough for unsafep?

   Please maintain the feature that NIL as second argument to 
   risky-local-variable-p means "There exists at least one risky value 
   that could be assigned to this variable."

   I'm not sure if your patch does this.

At first sight, it does not appear that Chong's patch changes this.
But, of course, this means that (risky-local-variable-p myvar nil)
very well may return t, even though assigning a value of nil may be
perfectly safe (and probably is).  At first sight, it does not appear
that Chong's patch takes this into account.  I am not sure that
Chong's patch should use risky-local-variable-p at all.

Sincerely,

Luc.