Re: A few thoughts on seq.el

[Michael Heerdegen]

Nicolas Petton <address@hidden> writes:

> I take back what I previously said, I think it could make sense, even
> if I generally don't like copy/pasting code.

FWIW, there is also room for improvement in the implementation: If a
list L has, say, 100000 elements,

   (cl-subseq l 1 3)

will be very slow because it always calculates the length of the first
argument L.  Maybe we can do it better in seq.el.


Michael.