Re: Comments on setopt

[Po Lu]

Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:

> Hi Lars,
>
> I'm glad to see the recent addition of the setopt macro.  

Indeed, it's a great addition.

> - While I don't mind it really, I can imagine that others might object
>   to the "long" name, when compared to setq.  Would a default alias like
>   "seto" or "setc" be worth it or not?

I think setopt is enough.  "seto" might be confused with oset, while I
don't immediately see what "setc" is supposed to represent.

What I find problematic is the large scale replacement of
`custom-set-variables' with setopt in the user manual.  I think there
was once a specific reason to use `custom-set-variables' there, but I
can't remember what.