Re: is requiring cl bad?

[Tony Day]

On 18 Dec 2012, at 06:09, Pascal J. Bourguignon <address@hidden> wrote:

>> 
>> 24.3 finally provides an alternative: `cl-lib' which offers the
>> same functionality but in a namespace-clean way (i.e. using a "cl-"
>> prefix everywhere).
> 
> This is a silly solution. 
> The right solution is to implement a package system.

FWIW, I had a lot of trouble with cl when I started learning elisp.  Did I have 
to learn the entire cl way of doing things to be proficient in emacs coding?  
Why was it 'special' in comparison to any other library/package but not so 
special as to be fully part of elisp?  In retrospect, treating cl functionality 
as non-core helped accelerate my learning phase and better understand how to 
write useful emacs code.

cl-lib is an awesome library that I hope to understand and use properly (one 
day).  That it was partially tolerated in the past is one of those difficult to 
reverse mistakes and I think the solution is quite respectful and graceful 
considering.

Tony