[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Revisiting `setq-local`s signature

From: Tino Calancha
Subject: Re: Revisiting `setq-local`s signature
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:47:05 +0900 (JST)
User-agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017, Jordon Biondo wrote:

A while ago I brought up the inconstant signatures of `setq`, `setq-default` 
and `setq-local`. In short, I want `setq-local` to
have the same signature as `setq` and `setq-local`. (setq* VAR VAL VAR VAL...)
See thread: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-03/msg00448.html

I appreciate Stefan's input back then, but I'd like to revisit the issue, get 
further input, and see if I can change some minds
about the issue.

If you believe the variadic signature of `setq` and `setq-default` is not 
ideal, consider that backwards compatibility erases any
chance that those two functions will lose that feature, and consider the 
benefits of being consistently wrong over being
inconsistently right.

Are maintainers and users still opposed to this change? If not I'd be happy to 
update the patch from the previous thread.

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
It is most natural for setq-local to have the same calling convention
as setq.
FWIW, i am in favour of naturalness too.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]