Re: bind faces?

[Miles Bader]

On 5/14/06, Drew Adams <address@hidden> wrote:
>     Why exactly do you want to do this?
>
> I thought I explained that. As an analogy to binding variables with `let'
> and functions with `flet', we would bind faces. Why does anyone want to bind
> variables and functions, as opposed to using `unwind-protect', assigning new
> definitions, and restoring afterward?

"By analogy with" isn't a very compelling reason for a feature.  What
I'm asking is:  "What is a real-world problem where you would need
such a thing?"

My impression is that faces in general reflect a more permanent sort
of state, and that the idea of "binding" face definitions is a bit
alien to the way they are used.

-Miles
--
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.