Re: Comments on setopt

[Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>]

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