Re: Revisiting `setq-local`s signature

[Tino Calancha]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017, Jordon Biondo wrote:

> A while ago I brought up the inconstant signatures of `setq`, `setq-default` 
> and `setq-local`. In short, I want `setq-local` to
> have the same signature as `setq` and `setq-local`. (setq* VAR VAL VAR VAL...)
> See thread: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-03/msg00448.html
>
> I appreciate Stefan's input back then, but I'd like to revisit the issue, get 
> further input, and see if I can change some minds
> about the issue.
>
> If you believe the variadic signature of `setq` and `setq-default` is not 
> ideal, consider that backwards compatibility erases any
> chance that those two functions will lose that feature, and consider the 
> benefits of being consistently wrong over being
> inconsistently right.
>
> Are maintainers and users still opposed to this change? If not I'd be happy to 
> update the patch from the previous thread.

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
> It is most natural for setq-local to have the same calling convention
> as setq.
+1
FWIW, i am in favour of naturalness too.

Regards,
Tino