Re: Customize Rogue

[Luc Teirlinck]

Per Abrahamsen wrote:
   
   Uh, does initsplit.el use multiple custom-set-variables?  That is
   guarenteed to cause problems whenever the user tries to modify the
   variables.  If so, it *really* should use setq (or a set-activate
   woralike) instead.

   Maybe the existence if initsplit.el is an argument for including
   set-activate in Emacs, to make it easier to write such tools.  It is
   hard for automated tools to read doctrings to find the proper Lisp
   function to set the variable.

Even if the current custom-set-variables and custom-set-faces forms
would be replaced by a series of custom-setq calls (which would be a
big plus for people who like to combine use of Custom with Lisp based
customizations) there still would, as is apparent from David's
messages, be a legitimate need to perform customizations that are
outside of Custom's control (and hence could not be done using
custom-setq).  If done by hand, it is sufficient if a Lisp alternative
is available and mentioned in the documentation string, although it
would help if the alternative was a function with the same name as the
variable (as is the case for minor modes), to avoid having to remember
two different names for exactly the same functionality and to
eliminate the need for a C-h v.

I do not know whether it would be possible to standardize such a naming
convention sufficiently to make it safe for automated use.  If not,
then I believe that there is indeed a need for set-activate.  It is
possible to abuse that function.  But the documentation string could
make clear what it is intended to be used for and what not.  In
particular, the documentation string would clearly state that it is
definitely not meant to set parameters from Lisp code, but instead for
customizations that are outside Custom's control, mainly in automated
use.  It is a very small function, it is not exactly going to "bloat"
custom.el.

Sincerely,

Luc.