From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tommy Kelly Subject: Re: Minor gotcha with org-agenda-files Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 11:41:45 -0600 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=51185 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PghUg-0004DA-GV for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 12:43:45 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PghTM-0007ei-AE for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 12:43:11 -0500 Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:52601) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PghTM-0007eT-1e for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 12:42:00 -0500 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PghTK-0008Kk-JP for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 18:41:58 +0100 Received: from cpe-70-112-150-104.austin.res.rr.com ([70.112.150.104]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 18:41:58 +0100 Received: from tommy.kelly by cpe-70-112-150-104.austin.res.rr.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 18:41:58 +0100 List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org suvayu ali writes: > On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Tommy Kelly wrote: >> I just figured out why, despite having a setq in my .emacs, my >> org-agenda-files wasn't what I thought it should be. >> >> It's because if you modify that variable using C-c [ or C-c ], then any >> explicit setq is rendered obsolete by the custom-set-variables >> entry that gets added automatically. >> > > This is nothing org specific. Its how customise works. This is the > reason people are encouraged to _not_ mix customise with setq. I for > example use customise for everything except org settings. Ah but hang on. First, is it reasonable to consider it obvious (I mean, it wasn't to me) that using C-c [ invokes customize? Second, even if it is reasonable, isn't it the case that customize offers a temporary change of variables? You have to explicitly ask it to make the change permanent, no? Overall, it just caught me unawares that C-c [ should write something in one of my files without even telling me let alone asking me. Maybe it's just me though. Tommy