[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments on setopt
From: |
Phil Sainty |
Subject: |
Re: Comments on setopt |
Date: |
Wed, 16 Feb 2022 22:52:53 +1300 |
User-agent: |
Orcon Webmail |
On 2022-02-16 20:04, Rudolf Adamkovič wrote:
I agree on unnecessary brevity.
Why not call it `set-user-option', given its description?
Even better, let's call it `customize-set-variable'? (/joke)
I managed to fail to CC the list address in an earlier response, but
for the record I've always thought that `setc' would be a good name
for such a thing, and IMO giving it a name that is at least nearly as
succinct as `setq' is not merely a good idea, but the primary benefit
over using `customize-set-variable' directly (indeed, I believe the
verbosity of the name `customize-set-variable' is a significant reason
why many people prefer to use `setq' for everything, even when they
know that user options can have setters).
To me, `setc' would be "like `setq' but for custom/user options",
and it's not going to be any more confusing than `setq' either.
If the name has to be longer then I think `setopt' is a good choice,
but I think that anything more verbose than this is missing the point
(either that, or I am).
-Phil
- Comments on setopt, Philip Kaludercic, 2022/02/14
- Re: Comments on setopt, Po Lu, 2022/02/16
- Re: Comments on setopt, Richard Stallman, 2022/02/18
- Re: Comments on setopt, Po Lu, 2022/02/19
- Re: Comments on setopt, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/02/19
- Re: Comments on setopt, Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2022/02/19
- Re: Comments on setopt, Mathias Dahl, 2022/02/19