[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
multi-assignment setq [was: setq's with missing final arguments.]
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
multi-assignment setq [was: setq's with missing final arguments.] |
Date: |
Sun, 22 Nov 2015 07:53:52 -0800 (PST) |
> In my opinion, multi-variable setq should be deprecated altogether.
(This is a change of topic. The Subject line should change too.)
Presumably, since `setq' can make multiple assignments to the
same variable, you mean not "multi-variable" but "multi-assignment".
> I'm sure many people will disagree for the reasons of habit,
I disagree completely. But not out of habit. In fact, for
years (quite a long time, in fact) I avoided it, in favor of
multiple `setq' calls. If necessary, I can give the reasons
why I now prefer to use a single `setq' with multiple assignments.
> but multi-variable setq is just plain bad: it makes LISP less
> lispy that it should be. For example: "(setq bar)" is a nice
> sexp: you can delete it, copy it, comment it, move it around
That quality is not what I consider "lispiness". That same
complaint applies to `let*' and a zillion other Lisp veterans.
- setq's with missing final arguments., Alan Mackenzie, 2015/11/22
- Re: setq's with missing final arguments., Andreas Schwab, 2015/11/22
- Re: setq's with missing final arguments., Artur Malabarba, 2015/11/22
- Re: setq's with missing final arguments., David Kastrup, 2015/11/22
- Re: setq's with missing final arguments., Andreas Schwab, 2015/11/22
- Re: setq's with missing final arguments., David Kastrup, 2015/11/22
- Re: setq's with missing final arguments., Andreas Schwab, 2015/11/22
- Re: setq's with missing final arguments., Alan Mackenzie, 2015/11/22
- Re: setq's with missing final arguments., Eli Zaretskii, 2015/11/22