Re: CL package serious deficiencies

[Stefan Monnier]

>>> I've never understood what's wrong with including cl.el, nor why the
>> The main issue is namespace.  If someone goes through the code to rename
>> it all to "cl-*", then we won't need to avoid using it.

> I don't think the namespace is an issue. A _lot_ of people do, in
> fact, (require 'cl), and packages continue to work for them. If there
> were any serious conflicts, they'd already be fixed.
> In other words, I don't think you can find an elisp package that only
> works properly if cl isn't loaded.

That's not the issue.  The issue is that CL's namespace is really
unclean and that's bad, regardless of whether other packages conflict.


        Stefan