Re: custom-set-variables considered harmful

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > ​I have been wondering about this too.  Are there any arguments for not
  > having setq run the setter of a custom option when available?

That change would create a risk of bugs in many parts of the code.
Each differnt kind of setter function creates a different risk of
possible errors.

That change would mean that making an ordinary let binding could run
arbitrary Lisp code.  Unwinding the binding could also run arbitrary
Lisp code.

Finally, it could cause errors in places that set the variable and
expect that to do nothing but put a new value in it.  This includes
the definitions of setter functions, right?

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.