Re: CL package suggestion

[Ilya Shlyakhter]

Of the names mentioned so far, cl-lib seems best to me: what distinguishes

cl from most other packages is that it's a library of callable code rather than

an implementation of some user-facing functionality.

cl-ext would also work for the same reason.

If the intention is to eventually obsolete and forget about the non-safe,

non-clean and non-nice version of cl, then cl-safe/cl-clean/cl-nice might

look strange in future code (suggesting that there's a non-safe/non-clean/non-nice

version somewhere & the user is choosing the safe/clean/nice version for

their particular program).  Cf. car-safe, floatp-safe etc.

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Richard Stallman <address@hidden> wrote:

   No: The way to do it is to rename cl.el to cl-<something>.el, change all
   its definitions to use the "cl-" prefix and then create a new cl.el
   which only contains defaliases.

Yes, that would be the right way.

My suggestions for names for the new package are cl-safe, cl-imp (for
implementation), or cl-nice (because it is nice to the namespace).

   > 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).

I agree.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
 Use free telephony http://directory.fsf.org/category/tel/