Re: make-variable-buffer-local change

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: "Drew Adams" <address@hidden>
> Cc: <address@hidden>, <address@hidden>, <address@hidden>,
>         <address@hidden>
> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:10:51 -0700
> 
> > > > I'd say "use" covers both kinds of use, but I'll defer to natives.
> > > 
> > > It's not a question of native speakers. "Use" here refers 
> > > to what the string is _for_; what it is used for.
> > 
> > Would replacing "use" with "set" solve this problem?
> 
> You missed the point. We don't want to talk about places where the value is 
> set.
> What's important is what the variable is for.

The doc string already includes that information:

  String to display in buffer listings for buffers not visiting a file.

If you think this is insufficient or can suggest a better wording,
please do.  But you began this sub-thread by complaining against the
next sentence, which, at least for me, caused confusion as to what you
were complaining about.

> What is important is to let users know that they can set it for use by
> buffer-listing code.

I agree, and I think the above portion of the doc string does
precisely that.