Re: CL package serious deficiencies

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Nix <address@hidden> writes:

> I've never understood what's wrong with including cl.el, nor why the
> byte-compiler should warn specially about it, any more than it warns
> about any other package.

Since the beginning of time, the Emacs maintainer (whoever they were at
the time) just hasn't liked Common Lisp.  The stated rationale for not
"allowing" cl.el usage has shifted around a lot over the years, though.
("It's too big run-time-wise", "we're going to reimplement Emacs in
Scheme", and now "the manual will be too big" and "it uses the wrong
prefix".)

Meanwhile, most of the people who program Emacs Lisp daily (i.e., people
like me) have always been in favour of including it.  Who doesn't want
`incf'?  `plusp'?  `delete-if-not'?  `position'?  So you get all these
hundreds of reimplementations of all these necessary functions, only
spread over all the different packages.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no  *  Sent from my Rome