RE: /srv/bzr/emacs/trunk r108127: New functionset-temporary-overlay-map and macros (defvar|setq)-local.

["Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> >> Oh, yes, I always disliked this use, so obviously I didn't 
> >> add it to setq-local.
> >
> > I don't like that much either. but I am concerned about consistency
> > between these setq* special forms.
> 
> More generally, some people (e.g. me) *do* like it, and are 
> unlikely to use setq-local in our own code if it doesn't support 
> something similar.

Not that I really care much about this... but FWIW -

For years I tended not to use `setq' for more than one assignment, feeling much
as what Stefan apparently feels.  A few years back I started to change (I don't
recall why).  And now I'm pretty much on the other side of the fence.

In general, I now find the multiple-assignment form more readable (less noise)
and lower maintenance.  It is especially more readable to group assignments if
they are closely related.  But even just in terms of general readability, I find
A better than B:

A:

(if whatever
    (setq alpha       (+ (beta) gamma)
          delta       epsilon
          iota-omega  (pool-fni dne-on))
  (do-this)
  (do-that)
  (do-more)
  (enough-already))

B:

(if whatever
    (progn
     (setq alpha       (+ (beta) gamma))
     (setq delta       epsilon
     (setq iota-omega  (pool-fni dne-on)))
  (do-this)
  (do-that)
  (do-more)
  (enough-already))

Again, FWIW/YMMV.  And if you argue that without clear layout it can be
confusing, I agree.  Which is why I don't write it this way:

(setq alpha (+ (beta) gamma) delta
      epsilon iota-omega (pool-fni dne-on))

So I think it's good for Emacs to support such syntax for `setq-local', other
things being equal (are they?).  Nothing requires anyone to use it.  And it is
consistent with setq, etc.