Re: CL package serious deficiencies

[Lennart Borgman]

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 23:28, Lars Ingebrigtsen <address@hidden> wrote:
> 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.

>From someone who do not know at all: Should perhaps some of the
functions in cl.el etc be reimplemented now that elisp knows lexical
binding?