Re: Revisiting `setq-local`s signature

[Philipp Stephani <p.stephani2@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1328 bytes --]

Jordon Biondo <jordonbiondo@gmail.com> schrieb am Mo., 30. Jan. 2017 um
19:39 Uhr:

> A while ago I brought up the inconstant signatures of `setq`,
> `setq-default` and `setq-local`. In short, I want `setq-local` to have the
> same signature as `setq` and `setq-local`. (setq* VAR VAL VAR VAL...)
>
> See thread:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-03/msg00448.html
>
> I appreciate Stefan's input back then, but I'd like to revisit the issue,
> get further input, and see if I can change some minds about the issue.
>
> If you believe the variadic signature of `setq` and `setq-default` is not
> ideal, consider that backwards compatibility erases any chance that those
> two functions will lose that feature, and consider the benefits of being
> consistently wrong over being inconsistently right.
>
> Are maintainers and users still opposed to this change? If not I'd be
> happy to update the patch from the previous thread.
>

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. Consistency
is not a goal in itself, but should serve the goal to increase readability
and lower 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.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2072 bytes --]