[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: Revisiting `setq-local`s signature

From: Drew Adams
Subject: RE: Revisiting `setq-local`s signature
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:57:39 -0800 (PST)

> As a user, I'm still opposed to this change. I don't think
> consistency is important enough in this case to justify the
> "worse" signature.

You don't say what is "worse" about it.

> Consistency is not a goal in itself, but should serve the
> goal to increase readability and lower the barriers for new
> contributors.

Yes, consistency is not a goal in itself.  But you do not say
how the suggested inconsistency here increases readability or
lowers the barriers for new contributors.

> I don't think that the simpler signature of setq-local is in
> any way confusing because of this inconsistency.

How is it simpler?  What _prevents_ a user from setting only
a single variable value each time s?he uses `setq-local'?

Additional assignments would be optional.  In fact, even the
first assignment would be optional, if we follow the `setq'

Is your statement about readability based on your feeling
that the first of these two sexps is more readable than the 
second?  If so, there are at least some people who don't feel 
that way.

 (setq-local foo 1)
 (setq-local bar 2)
 (setq-local fot 8)
 (setq-local tof 3)
 (setq-local baz 2)
 (setq-local zab 4)
 (setq-local flt 6))

(setq-local foo 1
            bar 2
            fot 8
            tof 3
            baz 2
            zab 4
            flt 6)

I don't see an argument that points to a downside to _allowing_
a variable number of assignments.

reply via email to

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