[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments on setopt
From: |
Philip Kaludercic |
Subject: |
Re: Comments on setopt |
Date: |
Tue, 15 Feb 2022 17:20:22 +0000 |
Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>>> - While I don't mind it really, I can imagine that others might object
>>> to the "long" name, when compared to setq. Would a default alias like
>>> "seto" or "setc" be worth it or not?
>> I think `seto' is confusing, and `setc' doesn't really tell you
>> anything. The salient thing is that we're setting user option, not that
>> it's been defined by `defcustom'.
>
> FWIW, it took me a while to understand what "long name" Philip was
> talking about because I assumed `setopt` wouldn't be considered as
> long. ;-)
The only reason I bring this up is that if someone has a block like
(setq save-interprogram-paste-before-kill t
kill-do-not-save-duplicates t
mouse-yank-at-point t)
they might hesitate to use setopt, purely because of the aesthetic
disadvantage of now being indented more:
(setopt save-interprogram-paste-before-kill t
kill-do-not-save-duplicates t
mouse-yank-at-point t)
Again, nothing critical (one could also start listing option in the
second line), but something I could anticipate being brought up..
>
> Stefan
>
--
Philip Kaludercic
- Re: Comments on setopt, (continued)
- Re: Comments on setopt, Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2022/02/19
- Re: Comments on setopt, Mathias Dahl, 2022/02/19
- Re: Comments on setopt, Dmitry Gutov, 2022/02/19
- Name for `setopt` (was: Comments on setopt), Stefan Monnier, 2022/02/19
- Re: Comments on setopt, Philip Kaludercic, 2022/02/19
- RE: [External] : Re: Comments on setopt, Drew Adams, 2022/02/19
Re: Comments on setopt, Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2022/02/15