On Thu, Sep 4, 2025, 12:03 PM Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

> > From: Spencer Baugh <sbaugh@janestreet.com>
> > Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2025 11:45:12 -0400
> > Cc: mail@daniel-mendler.de, 79380@debbugs.gnu.org
> >
> >  Shouldn't the tests of the value of the user option use stringp
> >  instead of null?
> >
> > Is that the convention?  I always feel like it's better to test for null
> explicitly, so that if the user sets the
> > variable to a symbol or list or something they get an error which can
> help them track down their mistake.
>
> I don't think this is about conventions.  In this specific case, any
> value that is not a string will signal an error in
> elisp-flymake-byte-compile--executable, exactly like nil did in the
> patch that was installed.  So I think any value that is not a string
> should be handled as nil (in addition to the checking of strings that
> the code already does).
>


Yes, my suggestion is that signaling an error is good because it shows that
the user's configuration is wrong.

>