Re: Customize Rogue

[Luc Teirlinck]

Per Abrahamsen wrote:

   Luc Teirlinck <address@hidden> writes:

   > I made a proposal to suggest that the function used by :set should
   > normally not only be named, but actually use the same symbol as the
   > variable.

In the above, I tried to summarize an earlier message and was careless
in doing that.  As I pointed out before, you misunderstood me, but I
am entirely to blame for that.  Sorry.

I did not mean that the :set function itself should be named after the
variable.  The :set function would usually be funcall, or a slight
variation on funcall, but could be anything, including a lambda
expression.

What I propose is that, if somebody writes a defcustom for a variable
`foo' with a :set function, then, unless there already is an obvious
well-known Lisp alternative, in which case there is no problem, the
author of the defcustom should provide a function `foo' such that
(foo value) is equivalent with setting foo to VALUE using defcustom.
(With a slight deviation for variables of boolean type, where foo
would behave analogously to minor modes functions.)  The easiest way
to achieve this would usually be to use funcall or a slight variation
on funcall (maybe a lambda expression) as the :set function and make
all the actual work of the :set function be done by the function
`foo'.

Sincerely,

Luc.