Re: the role of Custom in XEmacs (setting != saving)
Didier Verna <verna(a)inf.enst.fr> writes:
Personaly, I'm not very much for set-variable acting like
custom. It's important to have a method for setting a variable that
you KNOW you won't want to save. However, custom is missing a
set-variable equivalent, that wouldn't need to display a heavy
graphical interface.
No, it is not missing. There is both `customize-set-variable' which
set the `customized-value' and `customize-set-value' which does not.
Both uses custom-type for more intelligent prompting.
I didn't miss it. I hope I'm clearer now.
I think I'm getting it now. You want more `setq' variants.
1: The user has explicitly asked for this variable to be changed
for the rest of this session, but don't want it to be saved.
2: The user has explicitly set this variable, and also ensured
that it will remain set.
Customize could certainly use that information.
Footnotes:
[1] It's completely off-topic, but in France, there's a debate on
feminization of several words describing professions for instance.
Historically, some professions were reserved for men which explains why
nowadays we lack many feminin equivalents.
In Denmark the debate occured in the 70'ies. Basically, the result is:
Any profession that used to have two names now only has one name,
because having two names implies that women are not capable of doing
the same job as men.
Any profession that used to have a single name now has two names,
because having one name implied that the profession was reserved for a
single gender, thus degrading women.