Re: giving `setq-local' the same signature as `setq'

[Jordon Biondo]

> On Mar 19, 2015, at 10:08 AM, Richard Stallman <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> It is most natural for setq-local to have the same calling convention
> as setq.


> On Mar 18, 2015, at 12:24 PM, Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> I find this behavior of `setq' to be a misfeature, which is why
> I haven't adopted it for setq-local.


I understand the notion of setq's signature being a misfeature, but seeing as 
that will never change, I would tend to think that `setq-local’ should reflect 
it’s name and act the same as `setq’ but change values locally. 

Regardless of the solution decided upon, thank you both for the input,

- Jordon Biondo