Re: user-load-path (was: Re: Emacs 21 NEWS file (was Re: [OT?] Gnu Emacs is dying?)(fwd))

[Stefan Monnier]

>>>>> "Per" == Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> writes:
> Please note that the closest to that we have on the Lisp level is:
>         (eval-after-load "package"
>           (add-to-list 'package-foobar new-element))
> A rather complex mechanism for a non programmer.  Doing simple
> customizations shouldn't require more Lisp expertise than
>         (setq package-foobar some-simple-value)
> I therefore believe having user options with complex default values are
> a bad idea, even ignoring customize.  Modifying 'TeX-command-list' which
> is has a complex default value is what causes most users problems in
> AUC TeX.
> I much prefer customize being used as an argument to keep user options
> simple, than as an excuse to create overly complex user options.

I think that calling `load-path' overly complex is a slight exaggeration.
I agree that options should be made as simple to use as possible, but
I believe that the best answer can only be obtained if the choice is not
limited by arbitrary limitations in support code such as `custom'.

As far as I can tell, splitting `load-path' into two is making the
user-option more complex rather than less.


        Stefan