Perhaps an alternative macro `setopt-relaxed"? Documentation should suggest contacting package authors to request improvements (it's a very slow process to get misspecified packages updated and not all authors mean what they say when they themselves don't use the customize system--this group must know this all too well).
On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 11:28 AM Eli Zaretskii <e...@gnu.org> wrote: > > From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerde...@web.de> > > Cc: Eli Zaretskii <e...@gnu.org>, 73...@debbugs.gnu.org > > Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2024 17:11:40 +0200 > > > > Ship Mints <shipmi...@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > I'm suggesting that there will be noise from people who convert from a > > > working (setq some-package-option 2) to (setopt some-package-option > > > 2). This is not a request to change the elisp type system, it is a > > > request to consider if setopt's / customize internals should be > > > relaxed to the equivalent of #'= for these simple cases. > > > > How about adding an option letting the user disable the type checking of > > some options? > > Like what? Would we accept, for example, a string where the type is > 'symbol'? Or any value where type is 'boolean'? > > And I'm also not sure we want this: presumably, if the defcustom's > author specified a type, they meant it, no? > > Which is why I asked for opinions (but for now got only yours). > > Stefan, WDYT? >
