Re: Add file-locals and dir-locals

[martin rudalics]

> Actually a function `add-file-local-variable' posted already replaces
> the existing old value with a new one.

Sorry, I missed these at a first glance.

> I think to have one function is
> better than two (to add and to replace) because from the user's point of
> view when the user wants to add a variable we should not require from
> the user to check whether this variable already exists in the Local
> Variables list.

Obviously.

> Since `add-file-local-variable' does both "add" and "replace" operations
> it makes sense to rename it to `set-file-local-variable'.  But isn't "set"
> rather connotes with an operation that reads a variable's value and sets
> it to the variable with setq?

I don't care about the name.  But please fix the doc-strings accordingly ;-)

martin