RE: Sandbox subr-x? (was: `thunk-let'?)

[Drew Adams]

> > I questioned only the purpose of having a library, apparently
> > `subr.el',
> 
> (I think you mean subr-x.)

Yes, I do; sorry.

> > whose _purpose_ is to act as a sort of sandbox of stuff that, for
> > whatever reason, someone doesn't consider quite ready for primetime.
> 
> I don't have a strong opinion about it.  But I think the approach works:
> interested people use this stuff - privately, but also in Emacs - and
> the stuff develops.  Stuff that proved useful can later be moved to
> other places.  OTOH, if you think about things that happened there (like
> `when-let' and `if-let' having been obsoleted and replaced by `if-let*',
> `when-let*' and `and-let*', not long after that had been added), it is
> not too bad that not every Emacs user and package developer had already
> used it.

If it works, it works.  I can't argue much with that.

I think that if Emacs dev thinks a sandbox is helpful then it should
just use GNU ELPA, or a specific `sandbox' part of GNU ELPA, for that,
instead of a single file, `subr-x.el' that is part of the distributed
Emacs-Lisp code.

Better to put stuff being experimented with in files with names
related to that stuff, whether temporary or not.  Having a single 
sack of anythings named `subr-x.el' is not a great idea.

> But maybe subr-x is also a symptom of limited manpower: if we had hordes
> of people volunteering writing and updating documentation, we would
> probably be less reluctant to fully integrate and document this stuff in
> the first place.

That's not my position, at least.  I don't think the current
state of having a single `subr-x.el' sandbox delivered as part
of Emacs follows from having limited manpower or would be
finessed by having more manpower.

(And something half-developed can also be half-documented...)