Re: Comments on setopt

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:

> - Unless it makes more sense for `customize-set-variable' to take care
>   of it, should there be some type checking with errors or warnings if
>   the value doesn't match the type of a user option?

`customize-set-variable' should indeed warn/error out if the value is
invalid.

> - As `customize-set-variable' is being used directly, the "user" theme
>   is modified, and a customisation might be mirrored in
>   `custom-set-variables'.  This can lead to the unfortunate situation
>   where your setopt configuration is overriden by the
>   `custom-set-variables', depending on when and how you load `custom-file'
>   and when and how the `custom-set-variables' was generated.

Isn't that the case no matter how these variables are set?  It depends
on the order.

> - 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 `seto' is confusing, and `setc' doesn't really tell you
anything.  The salient thing is that we're setting user option, not that
it's been defined by `defcustom'.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no