Re: setq's with missing final arguments.

[Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>]

Hello, Andreas.

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 02:34:51PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> > Presumably you mean that this afflicts both byte compiler and
> > interpreter.  But that's really beside the point and does not magically
> > make it a good idea.

> The byte-compiler is not for imposing coding style.

That is why I proposed issuing a warning, not an error.  In the actual
case I found, it was indeed an error.  

> If it is wrong for setq to accept implit nil then it should be changed
> in setq and only then in the byte-compiler.

I would be happy enough for a missing final argument to setq to be an
error.  But until that stage is reached, I think issuing a warning is
appropriate.  But I disagree with you about priorities: it is more
important to catch the violations in our compiled code than worry about
the interpreted version.

> Andreas.

> -- 
> Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
> GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
> "And now for something completely different."

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).