Hi Dmitrii, Dmitrii Korobeinikov <dim12...@gmail.com> writes:
> Nice, I see! > >> IDK. AFAICS you are right with your argumentation. I don't see the >> need of that feature, though, yet. But that's just me. I think you are >> the best candidate to try an implementation of the feature. > > I have attached a small patch, seems to be working! Of course, if this > is to be merged, that defvar will have to turn into a defcustom. thanks for the patch, I applied a small variant of it as 056fc532b. I don't think we need an option (defcustom) for this, the current behavior seems correct -- but I'm convinced some people would prefer the previous behavior. If there are a lot of such people with strong argument, perhaps we will have to revert the change. Thanks, -- Bastien
