Re: Customize Rogue

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 09:03:20 +0100, Per Abrahamsen <address@hidden> wrote:

> Does the word have any special positive or negative connotations?

Neither one. It seemed to have the connotation of considering a worthy goal
the transition from lispy, setq-based initializations to form-based,
user-centered customizations.

I know understand that when you wrote "transition tool from «setq» to
customize", you meant for those who prefer using customize :)

> >  1.- Not getting the "modified outside of customize" messages that I get
> > the odd time I use it. 
> 
> They are there for a reason.

Of course. That's why I'm not saying they're erroneous or non-useful.
What I've said is that I'd like to have an easy way to use the customize
machinery in my .emacs, by hand, so customize recognizes that I know
what I'm doing. In other words, that if I do "(setq var value)" I get a
customize warning, but if I do "(custom-setq var value)" I don't because
I've already sacrificed the required chicken to the customize gods ;)

> custom-file probably should not have been declared with defcustom, as
> it make no sense to change it throug customize.

Anyway, I chose "custom-file" purely as an example. In my current
environment, customize-rogue finds 125 rogue variables...

> customize-set-variable will tell customize the variable has been set
> interactively, and call any speciel ":set" functions.
> 
> The first property means it should never be called from ".emacs", but
> the second could be generally useful.  
> 
> Maybe we should have a function that does the second (obey :set)
> without doing the first.

Yes.

> I'm not a Common Lisp programmer, but I
> suspect it would be natural to use setf for that purpose.

I'm not so sure. If I'm dancing with customize, I prefer to know it.
custom-setq or custom-setf or the like would be better.


                                                           /L/e/k/t/u