Re: Can we expand the valid location of "Local Variables" ?

[Dima Kogan]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

>> From: Robert Pluim <address@hidden>
>> Cc: address@hidden,  address@hidden,  address@hidden
>> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 16:28:49 +0100
>>
>> >>>>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 16:17:46 +0200, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> 
>> >>>>> said:
>>
>>     >> From: Robert Pluim <address@hidden>
>>     >> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 09:25:28 +0100
>>     >> Cc: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>, address@hidden
>>     >>
>>     >> Would providing a defcustom be such a hardship?
>>
>>     Eli> Given that "enlarging the limit is a bad idea", I'm not even sure we
>>     Eli> should provide a variable.  We definitely shouldn't document
>>     Eli> it.
>>
>> In that case we shouldnʼt even provide the variable, no?
>
> Possibly.  Stefan didn't say why he thought adding a variable was an
> improvement, but my guess would be ease of change in the future.

I think we should provide the variable, because even here the usual
reasons apply:

- With a variable the reader of the code knows that all uses of that
  variable refer to the same logical thing. If I see "3000" in two
  different places I don't know if they're related: it may just be a
  coincidence

- With a variable, the reader of the code knows where to find the
  documentation. If we document this.

- With a variable, the generated .tex docs and the value (3000) can't go
  out of sync