bug#20241: 25.0.50; `setq' with only one argument

[John Wiegley]

>>>>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:

> How about enhancing the definition of setq to say that with 17
> arguments, NONE of the assignments are done?  This should be relatively
> straight forward to code up in the byte compiler, even in the lexical
> binding case.

I prefer atomic operations whenever possible, so I'd rather than the whole
setq would fail. This catches the error earlier, and leaves the environment in
a condition that makes it easier to reproduce that error (it's possible that
some of the variable settings might change the code path such that the setq is
no longer performed).

John