Re: utf-translate-cjk-mode

[Luc Teirlinck]

Kai Grossjohann wrote:

   That's a very good question.  If there was a decision, I missed it.
   Arguments have been exchanged already, so maybe now is the time for
   Richard to say what he wants.

   Personally, I'm happy with either of the following:

   * Provide a way to allow people to write into their .emacs files Lisp
     statements that express "set variable foo to value bar using
     customize, and when you're asked to save all options, don't save
     the foo option to the custom-set-variables block as it is already
     expressed in the Lisp statement which I wrote to .emacs".

     I don't know whether custom-setq is the right name for this.

   * Implement a coding standard that requires that there be a Lispish
     way for all settings that can be done via Customize, and that the
     Lispish way is documented with the Customize options, and that the
     Customize way is documented with the Lispish
     function/variable/whatever.

I believe that it seems obvious from the reply Richard sent me (and,
of course, Richard can correct me if I misunderstood him) that the
decision was essentially the second with additionally the desirability
of replacing the current custom-set-variables and custom-set-faces
forms with a series of custom-setq statements.  (But that would
require at least some rewrite of Custom.)  It was clear to me that
set-activate was not considered a valid alternative to providing a
"Lispish" way.  What was not clear to me was whether custom-setq (if
implemented) would be a valid alternative.  Richard told me in his
reply that it was not.

But conceivably, you could have written your message before seeing
Richard's reply.

Sincerely,

Luc.