Re: Comments on setopt

[Phil Sainty <psainty@orcon.net.nz>]

On 2022-02-16 20:04, Rudolf Adamkovič wrote:
> I agree on unnecessary brevity.
> Why not call it `set-user-option', given its description?

Even better, let's call it `customize-set-variable'? (/joke)

I managed to fail to CC the list address in an earlier response, but
for the record I've always thought that `setc' would be a good name
for such a thing, and IMO giving it a name that is at least nearly as
succinct as `setq' is not merely a good idea, but the primary benefit
over using `customize-set-variable' directly (indeed, I believe the
verbosity of the name `customize-set-variable' is a significant reason
why many people prefer to use `setq' for everything, even when they
know that user options can have setters).

To me, `setc' would be "like `setq' but for custom/user options",
and it's not going to be any more confusing than `setq' either.

If the name has to be longer then I think `setopt' is a good choice,
but I think that anything more verbose than this is missing the point
(either that, or I am).


-Phil