Re: Cycle Auto-Fill

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2020 at 3:33 AM
> From: "Michael Heerdegen" <michael_heerdegen@web.de>
> To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Cycle Auto-Fill
>
> Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> writes:
>
> > So, only comment-auto-fill-only-comments need to be set to buffer
> > local.  Right?
>
> I think so, yes.  BTW, in my Emacs, the variable corresponding to
> auto-fill-mode is auto-fill-function; `auto-fill-mode' is unbound.

Unbound? What is that?

> > Returning back to taking the property "state".  If it is global. that
> > would only mean that in a different buffer the cycle would begin from
> > a a different starting point.  But then, the auto-fill settings would
> > still be buffer local.
>
> Yes, that, and cycling in the first buffer may bring you from 2 to 1 or
> from 2 to 2 afterwards.  Might be confusing, once you got used to it.

Can see what you mean.  That although what happens in the actual buffer
is local to the buffer, how the cycle performs, would depend on what
was done on other buffers, creating confusion.  Actually, it is not very
confusing as I write what option was selected in the mini buffer.

I have now started to understand buffer local quite well.  It has been
occurring to me that most things really got to be buffer local.

Continuing with the keybinding cycle (pressing repeatedly a key-sequence
to switch configuration, e.g. auto-fill in my case).

I am really getting into some difficulty figuring out what commands
would one want to have a Keybinding Cycle that would not be buffer-local.

For what things should a key-cycle be global?



> > Does the order of the two commands matter?
> >
> > (set (make-local-variable 'comment-auto-fill-only-comments) t)
> > (auto-fill-mode 1)
> >
> > versus
> >
> > (auto-fill-mode 1)
> > (set (make-local-variable 'comment-auto-fill-only-comments) t)
>
> No, should not matter.  These things are called expressions, btw.
>
> [And you might prefer `setq-local'.]
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael.
>
>
>