> bla bla Yes. Communication with 'inteligent beings' is, for me, quite often an extreemly difficult and error prone task. Believe it or not I spent over 2 hrs on that post trying to be clear. 3 on this.
> Another way is to post here an example of a specific behavior which > you find counter intuitive (basically write a bug report, but asking > why it works that way, rather than claiming it's a bug ;-). I didn't say it *was* a bug, but "a bug waiting to happen". Perhaps thats an idiom you're not familiar with. Sorry. But my other statement should have made it clear I wasn't claiming it was a bug: "Since it appears to be by design, I'd be terribly curious to see any archive of discussions concerning why this is appropriate behavior." > It'd also be helpful to cite relevant parts of the elisp manual > which lead you to your mis-understanding, so we can try and improve > it. So your saying "no mention in any Elisp manual section that covers plists or symbol function cells about this behavior" isn't specific enough? I'm sure your not implying I should have actually listed every section that refers to either of these subjects so I can't tell what more you expected me to cite. I also expressed "The `feature' is only _implied_, not documented." IOW, no place (as in anywhere in the user or reference manual) do I find a warning or even a passing mention that a symbol, created by let or let* is handled differently from a symbol created through set, fset, any of the def... forms, intern, etc. >From what you've said (and experiments point to you being correct), no one should ever use put, fset, setplist etc on any symbol whose origin might be let or let* since the resulting behavior would apparently be undefined (as evidenced by the example in my previous post). Hence, a bug waiting to happen. _______________________________________________ Help-gnu-emacs mailing list Help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnu-emacs