Re: Advantage using mapc over dolist

[Heime]

On Wednesday, December 4th, 2024 at 6:57 AM, Alfred M. Szmidt <ams@gnu.org> 
wrote:

> > > If your only gripe is about the names of cl-case and cl-ecase, then
> 
> > > why mention pcase and cond*? they were not renamed and didn't come
> 
> > > from CL. And why is it "a mess"? You've made abundantly clear that
> 
> > > you didn't like the cl- names, why is there a need to add unrelated
> 
> > > accusations?
> 
> > in short, because people are directed to use pcase as the replacement
> 
> > for case and pcase-exhaustive as replacement for ecase
> 
> 
> I agree. Everyone is aware about the historical discouragement about cl
> things, but we have no understanding if such discouragement is still relevant
> today. We need some certainty so we can adapt our code accordingly.
> 
> ecase, and case are older than CL.
> 
> But this isn't so much about CL or not CL. If CL has specific useful
> macros or functions, they surley can be added to Emacs Lisp if there
> is good reasons for them. 

> Emacs Lisp isn't CL and doesn't try to be, for very good reasons.
 
Actually it is about CL or not CL.  Otherwise there would not have been 
the comment above.

The confusion in emacs self-mode.  Because eventually the cl- things get
introduced and nobody knows what the hell we are supposed to do with them.

In my school of thought, if you introduce them, people will use them.  But
then the maintainers let people hang themselves using them, because the 
documentation refrains from a good enough explanation about their use.