[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: doc elisp intro cross reference fixes

From: Kai Grossjohann
Subject: Re: doc elisp intro cross reference fixes
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 21:25:54 +0000
User-agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux)

Kevin Rodgers <address@hidden> writes:

> They are independent because customize was introduced as a new mechanism,
> instead of extending set-variable.  Whether they remain so is apparently
> up for discussion.  (Would you feel comfortable removing set-variable, or
> aliasing it to customize?)

Maybe one needs to think more radical thoughts: Where is the sense in
allowing me to do (setq global-font-lock-mode t) even though it has no

Now, maybe changing setq to invoke the Custom setter would be too

But maybe it is possible to change Custom such that it doesn't need
those variables?  Then we could remove all the variables that have no
effect when set via setq, and then the set-variable problem would
(almost?) cease to exist.  Why can't Custom be told that there is a
function global-font-lock-mode that can be invoked with positive or
negative args, or not invoked at all?  It seems it should be possible
to change Custom in this way.

What do people think?


reply via email to

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