Re: Comments on setopt

[Philip Kaludercic]

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> 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.

While I do see that there is potential for confusion between seto and
oset, I'd like to argue once more for setc.  It is no less confusing
from a non-lisp-hacker perspective than setq (that also only makes sense
when you understand set).

-- 
        Philip Kaludercic