Received: by 10.204.15.209 with SMTP id l17mr831845bka.6.1348863790061;
        Fri, 28 Sep 2012 13:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: vim_dev@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.204.157.26 with SMTP id z26ls5559910bkw.1.gmail; Fri, 28 Sep
 2012 13:23:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.6.19 with SMTP id 19mr836746bkx.8.1348863785306;
        Fri, 28 Sep 2012 13:23:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.6.19 with SMTP id 19mr836745bkx.8.1348863785292;
        Fri, 28 Sep 2012 13:23:05 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <cbli...@256bit.org>
Received: from 256bit.org ([85.214.140.184])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 23si946292bku.1.2012.09.28.13.23.05
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Fri, 28 Sep 2012 13:23:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 85.214.140.184 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of cbli...@256bit.org) client-ip=85.214.140.184;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 85.214.140.184 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of cbli...@256bit.org) smtp.mail=cbli...@256bit.org
Received: from chrisbra by 256bit.org with local (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <cbli...@256bit.org>)
	id 1THh5U-0002Nc-W7
	for vim_dev@googlegroups.com; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 22:23:04 +0200
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 22:23:04 +0200
From: Christian Brabandt <cbli...@256bit.org>
To: vim_dev@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Does b:undo_ftplugin actually work?
Message-ID: <20120928202304.GI19145@256bit.org>
Mail-Followup-To: vim_dev@googlegroups.com
References: <20120928040356.GA12181@phoenix>
 <c82dfe2f-0e18-4ea9-960a-ca14769bcb8f@googlegroups.com>
 <20120928060146.GB12181@phoenix>
 <20120928122127.GA19145@256bit.org>
 <0bc14fed-3b5e-4b1a-a994-0aaf5b1e9158@googlegroups.com>
 <20120928184735.GB19145@256bit.org>
 <ec720e64-62c1-4801-a63d-398f5f776941@googlegroups.com>
 <20120928201341.GG19145@256bit.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120928201341.GG19145@256bit.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: <cbli...@256bit.org>


On Fr, 28 Sep 2012, Christian Brabandt wrote:

> No you are not. Just test it. It works correctly.

Or to say it differently: by the time the BufUnload command is 
triggered, the old buffer local variables have not been cleared yet, so 
you can still access them.

regards,
Christian