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

[Drew Adams]

> > > I find this behavior of `setq' to be a misfeature, which is
> > > why I haven't adopted it for setq-local.
> 
> > It is most natural for setq-local to have the same calling
> > convention as setq.
> 
> I understand the notion of setq's signature being a misfeature,

You do?  Pray tell, in what way is it a misfeature?  Nothing has
been said to elucidate this, so far - it has only been asserted.

IMHO, it is a feature, giving users the choice.  Just like implicit
`progn' gives you the choice of adding `progn' or not.

I often prefer to see sequential assignments grouped in the same
`setq'.  It means a lot less noise, for one thing.

Especially when it means not needing to group multiple `setq's
using `progn'.

> 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’

Yes.  Not to mention the same as Common Lisp `setf' and `psetf'...
(Other Lisps too.)

> but change values locally.

Yes, I think so too, FWIW.