Dmitry Gutov <dgu...@yandex.ru> writes:
> On 08.01.2017 00:20, npost...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
>> - (inhibit-modification-hooks t))
>> + (inhibit-modification-hooks
>> + (progn (make-local-variable 'inhibit-modification-hooks) t)))
>
> Are we not worried that inhibit-modificaiton-hooks will become
> buffer-local even after control flow leaves this let*?
My feeling is that inhibit-modification-hooks should usually be buffer
local anyway.
> If we are not, why not make inhibit-modification-hooks always
> buffer-local instead?
It would have to be in addition to, because even after doing
(make-variable-buffer-local 'var), (let ((var 'foo))...) still makes a
global binding. `make-variable-buffer-local' only has effect for
`setq', which I think will hardly ever happen for
`inhibit-modification-hooks'.
Actually, I just grepped for inhibit-modification-hooks and the only
non-let I found is this:
(defun read-passwd (prompt &optional confirm default)
...
(minibuffer-with-setup-hook
(lambda ()
...
(setq-local inhibit-modification-hooks nil) ;bug#15501.
...))
...)
