RE: server-local variables

[Drew Adams]

> > I use an obarray in `synonyms.el', for example, for the
> > names in a dictionary (thesaurus).
> > (https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/Synonyms)
> 
> That's exactly an example where you use obarrays to do
> something similar to modules.

Oh, that's what you meant by "modules"?  Had you mentioned
"namespaces" (or even just separate sets of "symbols", or
even "something similar to Common Lisp packages"), that
might have been clearer.

(Especially in light of the recent discussions of adding
a different sort of "modules" to Emacs.)

See Ted's reply, where it seems he thought of an obarray
for exactly the reasons you and I apparently agree that
obarrays _can_ be appropriate: to wall off sets of symbols:

> OK, it seemed like you were basically designing a scoped
> symbol table per connection, so an obarray seemed sensible.
> I haven't worked with them so it was just a question for
> my education.  But if they are actively discouraged for
> most usage, the ELisp manual section on Creating Symbols
> should mention that.  I was not aware.

He seems to have taken your admonition somewhat similarly
to how I did.

Had you just said that you don't think separate symbol
namespaces are needed here, I don't think there would have
been any confusion.  It was not clear, to me at least, why
you said that obarray use cases are *very* rare. 

And if it _is_ needed here to have separate sets of symbols
(some of which could have the same name), then "Why not an
obarray?" isn't an unreasonable question.

Perhaps your reply was just your way of asking "Do we need
separate sets of symbols here?", or your way of saying that
we do not?