From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: obsolete comment in tool-bar.el Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 11:53:10 -0700 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1120849550 22643 80.91.229.2 (8 Jul 2005 19:05:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 19:05:50 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 08 21:05:47 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dqy9b-0006jd-36 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 21:04:51 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DqyB1-0005Rq-GU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 15:06:19 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Dqy9O-000572-Va for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 15:04:39 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Dqy9D-0004zM-3M for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 15:04:27 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dqy9C-0004wQ-RT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 15:04:26 -0400 Original-Received: from [141.146.126.230] (helo=agminet03.oracle.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.34) id 1Dqy59-0001XT-GP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 15:00:15 -0400 Original-Received: from agminet03.oracle.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by agminet03.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id j68IrGIw020125 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 13:53:16 -0500 Original-Received: from rgmsgw300.us.oracle.com (rgmsgw300.us.oracle.com [138.1.186.49]) by agminet03.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id j68IrFPk020113 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 13:53:16 -0500 Original-Received: from rgmsgw300.us.oracle.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rgmsgw300.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.4/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id j68IrFZ9031754 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 12:53:15 -0600 Original-Received: from dradamslap (dhcp-amer-csvpn-gw2-141-144-72-76.vpn.oracle.com [141.144.72.76]) by rgmsgw300.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.4/Switch-3.1.0) with SMTP id j68IrEJV031744 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 12:53:15 -0600 Original-To: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:40657 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:40657 (defvar rogue-var) ;; to silence the compiler for the next line. (unless (default-boundp rogue-var) (setq rogue-var nil)) (defcustom rogue-var ... ... :initialize 'custom-initialize-set ...) Suppose we implement a keyword in defcustom that causes it to generate all that. That will look nice in the source code, but at execution time it will be equivalent to the above. I think that would be clearly better than all three of the above solutions. Sounds great to me. Or what about just reusing keyword :initialize, perhaps redefining its behavior to recognize this special case? After all, this is about initializing the value. The case could be distinguished by supplying :initialize with an argument `custom-initialize-set-runtime' (or some better name). Ignore that suggestion if it makes little sense - I'm no pro on defcustom. Anyway, I like the idea of implementing Luc's "ugly" code via a defcustom keyword. Perhaps someone will point out problems with it, but I can't think of any offhand. Question: How will users see/detect/understand this behavior? What will they see in "Show initial Lisp expression"? I assume the keyword behavior would be documented, but I'm wondering what users will see in Customize.