Re: Customize Rogue

[David Masterson]

>>>>> Luc Teirlinck writes:

> Even if the current custom-set-variables and custom-set-faces forms
> would be replaced by a series of custom-setq calls (which would be a
> big plus for people who like to combine use of Custom with Lisp
> based customizations) there still would, as is apparent from David's
> messages, be a legitimate need to perform customizations that are
> outside of Custom's control (and hence could not be done using
> custom-setq).  If done by hand, it is sufficient if a Lisp
> alternative is available and mentioned in the documentation string,
> although it would help if the alternative was a function with the
> same name as the variable (as is the case for minor modes), to avoid
> having to remember two different names for exactly the same
> functionality and to eliminate the need for a C-h v.

I'm not sure I understand this.  As Per points out, there may *NOT* be
a legitimate need to have customizations outside of Custom's control
as the customizations are pretty lightweight.  Also, as demonstrated
by initsplit, it seems possible to have multiple custom-set-variables
sections as long as (*I* *think*) they don't conflict on variables
and, hence, don't need custom-setq.  The big problem is that, with
multiple sections of custom-set-variables or custom-setq that exist in
multiple .emacs or related files, it would be impossible for Custom to
find them and update them when the user wishes to do his own
customizations.

> I do not know whether it would be possible to standardize such a
> naming convention sufficiently to make it safe for automated use.
> If not, then I believe that there is indeed a need for set-activate.
> It is possible to abuse that function.  But the documentation string
> could make clear what it is intended to be used for and what not.
> In particular, the documentation string would clearly state that it
> is definitely not meant to set parameters from Lisp code, but
> instead for customizations that are outside Custom's control, mainly
> in automated use.  It is a very small function, it is not exactly
> going to "bloat" custom.el.

If, though, customizations cannot really be put into any place other
than custom-file and still be "customizable" by Custom, does it really
matter if there is a custom-setq function?

-- 
David Masterson                David DOT Masterson AT synopsys DOT com
Sr. R&D Engineer               Synopsys, Inc.
Software Engineering           Sunnyvale, CA