RE: `set-variable' should use :set

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Drew Adams writes:

 > However, I disagree that [set-variable] is not that much more
 > convenient than setq.  For one thing, it respects the defcustom
 > :type spec.  For another, it uses a proper interactive spec.  The
 > type-checking in particular is a win, IMO.

I don't find either of those noticable.  Except when type-checking
conflicts with the lack of :set support, which can be confusing.

 > (FWIW, I use it often.)

I'm curious, what are your use cases?  When I find myself using
set-variable (more likely, setq), it's invariably a symptom of a
defect in my environment: a command is missing an argument, an
initialization function is DT wrong T.  In fact, I often do

M-: (setq foovar barval) RET
;; experiment
M-: C-p C-a C-k C-g
M-x find-function RET foo RET <mouse-2> C-j

which makes "M-: (setq ..." an effective, rather than annoying, idiom.