Re: Obsoleting of generalized variable setters in 48aacbf292fbe8d4be7761f83bf87de93497df27

[Adam Porter]

Hi Stefan,

On 11/21/22 15:33, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > At the least, it would seem like a good idea to have an open discussion
> > before removing 38 such setters from Elisp.
>
> They were not removed: they were obsoleted.
> When we mark a feature obsolete, it *is* a (last) call for discussion
> before we remove it.

Ah, I misunderstood: I thought marking something as obsolete meant that 
the decision has been made, and users should begin removing it from 
their code.

> So go ahead, and argue away to defend those generalized vars you think
> we should keep.  Make those arguments concrete, tho: those 38 generalized
> vars are pretty much all independent from each other, so each one should
> be debated on its own merits.

I agree that each should be debated on its own merits.  But has the 
burden been reversed?  Could we argue why they should be removed rather 
than why they should be kept?  I would generally argue that features 
that have been implemented should be considered useful (otherwise, why 
would they have been added?) and not be removed except for specific 
reasons.

And I don't know who has the time to research and argue to undo 38 
individual things that I wish hadn't been done all-at-once in the first 
place.  :)

Thanks,
Adam