RE: Rationalising c[ad]\{2,5\}r.

[Artur Malabarba]

> It doesn't much matter where they were defined.  They are basic
> Lisp.  Who cares where `setq' is defined, in terms of modularity
> or namespaces?
> (...)
> That was an even bigger mistake - doing that systematically, I mean.
> `cl-car', `cl-cdr',...  Sheesh - what silliness.
>
> `car' is Lisp.  It is not special to Common Lisp.
> `letf' is Emacs Lisp.  It is not Common Lisp.
>
> Neither should get the `cl-' prefix.  Neither is emulating
> Common Lisp, and neither is confusable with something else
> already existing in Emacs Lisp.

You confuse me with someone who cares about this package. I was just trying to answer your questions.

As long as I can develop packages for 24.1 without having to jump through hoops, I don't care at all where all this functions are defined.

> > >> and there will be compatibility aliases for cl-caaadr etc..
> > >
> > > Why? Why is that needed?
> >
> > To not make it harder for developers to support Emacs 24.X
>
> Well, if you mean keeping `caaadr', then yes.  It's `cl-caaadr'
> that has no raison d'etre.  Keep `caaadr'; toss `cl-caaadr'.

Has, `caaadr' always existed (since 24.1) without explicitly `require'ing the `cl' package?

If the answer is yes, then I'm fine with removing the prefixed alias.

> Putting it like you did is trying to make a virtue out of
> necessity (or a purse out of a sow's ear, if you prefer).

Again, forgive me if I misexpressed myself as someone who cares. I wasn't defending the package. I just want to ensure we don't break existing code (or, if we do, at least ensure it's not a pain to unbreak).