Re: CL package serious deficiencies

[Helmut Eller]

* Stefan Monnier [2012-02-12 18:15] writes:

>>>>> I much prefer a leaner approach where instead of (delete-if
>>>>> #'foo :key #'bar) you have to write (delete-if (lambda (x) (foo (bar
>>>>> x)))).
>>>> This transformation can be done automatically by a compiler-macro.
>>> Not sure what you mean by "automatically", here.  Do you mean "without
>>> prompting the user to do the transformation by hand"?
>> Yes.
>
> That's the expected behavior of a compiler-macro, so really what you're
> saying is that "This transformation can be done by a compiler-macro",
> but the problem remains: you have to write the compiler-macro by hand,
> and the function still has to handle the :key argument anyway, in case
> the compiler-macro can't do its job.

Yes, compiler-macros have to written and the cases that aren't handled
by compiler-macros could then only be used when 'cl is loaded (that code
is already there).  Many uses of :key and :test can be handled by such
compiler-macros.  If things need to be fast, some parts must be written
in C.

Using compiler-macros would be a relatively easy way to provide
efficient implementations for the most important uses of cl-sequence
functions.  That's all.  If you like to spend your time designing
similar but incompatible functions just go ahead.

Helmut