Re: customize-set-(value|variable) [was: apropos commands for commands, user options, all functions, all variables]

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Drew Adams wrote:
> > 1. Rename `customize-set-value' to `set-option', and
> >    `customize-set-variable' to `set-option-default' (or
> >    add aliases). Users will find these names easier.

Agree. I have a hard time remember which is which of ..-set-value and 
..-set-variable.

BTW, would it be good if set-option-default had a final question whether 
to save the new value for future sessions?

> >    These commands provide much better interaction
> >    for reading the new value than does the current
> >    `set-variable'. Their interaction subsumes that of
> >    `set-variable', which uses only property
> >    `variable-interactive'.

What is the reason for keeping the current version of set-variable?

> > 2. Rewrite `set-variable' to set any variable, not just an
> >    option, and when the variable is an option then have
> >    the code do what `customize-set-value' does. That is,
> >    provide better value input interaction, when possible.

Sounds good.

> > 3. `customize-set-(value|variable)' needs some improvement.
> >    Here are some things I notice:

I am not sure it is worth the effort to allow completion directly for 
more complicated variables. Why not use the custom buffer in such cases 
(and of course allow good completion there)? Maybe set-option(-default) 
could suggest/ask about that in those cases? Or maybe switch to the 
custom buffer then? (If that is not too confusing.)