From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Revisiting `setq-local`s signature Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:57:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <97d4f384-5126-4fc4-8902-0bdb59fa5ae4@default> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1485890387 31555 195.159.176.226 (31 Jan 2017 19:19:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 19:19:47 +0000 (UTC) To: Philipp Stephani , Jordon Biondo , Emacs development discussions Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 31 20:19:43 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cYdxu-0007zP-DK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 20:19:42 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40647 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cYdxz-0008Uo-RG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 14:19:47 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35154) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cYdci-0005Bo-Vf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 13:57:49 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cYdcf-0005KQ-P3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 13:57:49 -0500 Original-Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:27670) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cYdcf-0005Hm-F5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 13:57:45 -0500 Original-Received: from aserv0022.oracle.com (aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id v0VIvfee012592 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:57:41 GMT Original-Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236]) by aserv0022.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v0VIvfZE031016 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:57:41 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0011.oracle.com (abhmp0011.oracle.com [141.146.116.17]) by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v0VIvegb022088; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:57:40 GMT In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 12.0.6753.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 141.146.126.69 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:211813 Archived-At: > As a user, I'm still opposed to this change. I don't think > consistency is important enough in this case to justify the > "worse" signature. You don't say what is "worse" about it. > Consistency is not a goal in itself, but should serve the > goal to increase readability and lower the barriers for new > contributors. Yes, consistency is not a goal in itself. But you do not say how the suggested inconsistency here increases readability or lowers the barriers for new contributors. > I don't think that the simpler signature of setq-local is in > any way confusing because of this inconsistency. How is it simpler? What _prevents_ a user from setting only a single variable value each time s?he uses `setq-local'? Additional assignments would be optional. In fact, even the first assignment would be optional, if we follow the `setq' model. Is your statement about readability based on your feeling that the first of these two sexps is more readable than the=20 second? If so, there are at least some people who don't feel=20 that way. (progn (setq-local foo 1) (setq-local bar 2) (setq-local fot 8) (setq-local tof 3) (setq-local baz 2) (setq-local zab 4) (setq-local flt 6)) (setq-local foo 1 bar 2 fot 8 tof 3 baz 2 zab 4 flt 6) I don't see an argument that points to a downside to _allowing_ a variable number of assignments.