Re: Revisiting `setq-local`s signature

[Jordon Biondo <jordonbiondo@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2334 bytes --]

>
> 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.


FWIW the reason I am bringing this up again is that I watched as a
coworker, and new emacser, struggled with the inconstantly while I helped
them setup their config with a new major mode. I explained the issue and
that I'd try to fix it before which is when they brought up the "better to
be consistently wrong" idea which I thought made a good case.

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> wrote:

> > 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
> second?  If so, there are at least some people who don't feel
> 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.
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3190 bytes --]