Re: CL package suggestion

[Stefan Monnier]

> cl-clean sounds a bit like a development stage in a project (alpha,
> beta, clean...) -- might be confusing as a permanent package name?
> other than that, sounds good.

Not sure how much of a problem that is, but if people don't like it, we
can surely find something else: `cl-all', `cl-prefix'?

> other possibilities:
> cl2
> cl-new
> cl-compat
> cl-ext
> cl-exts
> cl-extensions

I don't like the "2" and "new" concepts here, since it's not
a reimplementation/redesign.  I didn't like "cl-ext" at first, but maybe
there's some sense to it.  How 'bout "cl-lib" instead?

> btw, the name prefix will stay as cl- , as in cl-remove-if, whatever the
> 'require symbol, correct?

Yes.

> also, should the names be changed everywhere in the CL package manual,
> or just add a separate section saying that the following names should
> really be prefixed?

We want to discourage the use of plain (require 'cl), so the manual
should reflect that and document the prefixed names.

> also: should i also add cl- aliases for macro names in CL, for uniformity?

That's a good question and I haven't thought much about it.  I'm leaning
towards the "yes" (e.g. I don't like the current dolist/dotimes
situation where those macros are defined in two different ways
depending on whether `cl' is loaded or not).


        Stefan