Re: setq's with missing final arguments.

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 14:10:31 +0000
> From: Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden>
> Cc: David Kastrup <address@hidden>, address@hidden
> 
> > The byte-compiler is not for imposing coding style.
> 
> That is why I proposed issuing a warning, not an error.  In the actual
> case I found, it was indeed an error.  
> 
> > If it is wrong for setq to accept implit nil then it should be changed
> > in setq and only then in the byte-compiler.
> 
> I would be happy enough for a missing final argument to setq to be an
> error.  But until that stage is reached, I think issuing a warning is
> appropriate.  But I disagree with you about priorities: it is more
> important to catch the violations in our compiled code than worry about
> the interpreted version.

As long as 'setq' accepts this use case, it is not a violation.