Re: CL package serious deficiencies

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Nix writes:
 > On 7 Feb 2012, Stefan Monnier said:
 > 
 > >> 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.
 > 
 > Aha. I'd agree with *that*: it's always been hellishly unclear which
 > things are in cl or not.

Oh, s**t.  *We* do *not* agree, since we're moving in the direction of
exact Common Lisp conformance for the subset of features we provide (I
think Aidan has the intention of reducing cl.el to

    ;;; cl --- Common Lisp emulation for Emacsen
    (provide 'cl)
    ;;; end of cl.el

in the near future).

Not that anybody on this list *should* care about that, but just in
case.... ;-)