Re: Defaults for set-variable

[Miles Bader]

2005/11/4, Drew Adams <address@hidden>:
>     > M-: is not convenient as this new command.  It doesn't
>     > provide variable name completion,
>
>     well, it does, using M-TAB
>
> No.  We've been through this loop before...  M-TAB completion completes
> _any Lisp symbol_  name. What we're talking about here is completing only
> _variable_  names - and not just  _user-option_  names.

Yes.  What you haven't shown is whether this is a compelling issue or not.

It's clear that there are infinite numbers of "convenience" functions
one could write, to optimize usage for particular special cases. 
However we obviously can't create _all_ convenience functions, because
the resulting code and (especially) namespace bloat have a bigger
downside that the small convenience offered, multiplied by the rare
instance of use.

>From my personal experience, I claim that the frequency with which one
sets variables by hand which _aren't_ "user variables" is very low --
and as an Emacs hacker, I probably do so more often than an average
user.  Thus, given that the proposed function offers at best, a rather
minor increase in convenience, and will be used very rarely, it simply
isn't worth the code/namespace bloat; existing more general functions
as M-: are "convenient enough", and used much more often.

Morever, if there's a particular non-user variable you find yourself
often setting, that's more likely to be an argument for making that
variable a user-variable than an argument for making setting
non-user-variables easier.

-miles
--
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.