Re: Comments on setopt

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> Since it isn't meant for the command line options that `getopt' examines,
> the name `setopt' is misleading.  (It already misled me!)
> This name should be changed to something longer and clearer.

You mean you thought this had something to do with getopt.h?  I don't
thing confusing `setopt' with that has potential to confuse many people
writing Lisp code -- most people haven't heard of getopt.h, there is no
`getopt' function in Emacs Lisp, and what would setting a command line
switch even mean?

The point is that we need a variant of `setq' for user options that
people can use when saying `M-:' and in init files, so it needs to be
short and snappy.  `seto' and `setc' were proposed, but I thought those
were too confusing.

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