Re: What's missing in ELisp that makes people want to use cl-lib?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
> Cc: rms@gnu.org,  joaotavora@gmail.com,  adam@alphapapa.net,
>   emacs-devel@gnu.org,  stefankangas@gmail.com
> Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2023 07:48:21 +0000
> 
> >> >> what constitutes "Emacs Lisp"?  It would
> >> >> seem peculiar if it were to be defined by the arbitrary decisions of the
> >> >> past, constrained by the contingent circumstances of the time.
> >> >
> >> > Those "arbitrary decisions" are what got us to where we are now, 40
> >> > years later.  So some respect for those "arbitrary decisions" is due,
> >> > I think.
> >> 
> >> No disrespect meant, but I am not sure we are thinking of the same
> >> things.  An "arbitrary decision" usually doesn't matter much, like
> >> calling a function rplacd or setcdr.  If a decision got us to where we
> >> are now, I would say it wasn't that arbitrary, but a good one?
> >
> > Exactly my point.  So what did you mean by "It would seem peculiar if
> > [what constitutes Emacs Lisp] were to be defined by the arbitrary
> > decisions of the past"?
> 
> That "setcar" is supposed to be more Elisp-ish than "rplacd", or things
> like that. 

I didn't mean traditional names, I meant traditional syntax and
semantics of constructs.

> >> Of course not extending it for its own sake, but I would assume that
> >> making it easier for users to write practical and useful code should be
> >> something that is valued.
> >
> > We should consider such additions carefully, weighing their advantages
> > against the disadvantages: introducing "alien" syntax, making the
> > language larger, etc.
> 
> What I had in mind were extensions like the recent `with-restriction'.

I doubt that this is what bothers Richard (and me, to some extent).

> >> Could you explain what you mean by "traditional" Emacs Lisp?
> >
> > Basically, the language as it is, without macros whose syntax is
> > different from Emacs Lisp.  For example, cl-loop has syntax that to my
> > eyes is starkly not Emacs Lisp, because it uses many keyword-like
> > parts that look like they were lifted from Fortran.
> 
> Then again (cl-)loop is a peculiar example; even among CL programmers
> there are many that dislike using it on the same grounds.

Grepping our own sources for "(cl-loop" comes back with more than 760
hits.  That's more than one use for every 2 Lisp files in our tree.

And cl-loop is not the only example of additions whose syntax deviates
from Emacs Lisp traditions.