Re: moving more cl seq/mapping support into core

[MON KEY <monkey@sandpframing.com>]

Daniel Colascione wrote:
> What are the good things/ What are the "horrible ugly thing"? What
> criteria can you use to distinguish them?

Maybe the better question is, in anticipation of lexical scoping which
of these distinguishing criteria will no longer be relevant?

Whatever the current/existing rationales may be, surely _some_ will
cease to be relevant by any reasonably sane justification in lieu of
lexically scoped environments.

I would very much like to know now _concretely_ what the existing
criteria are so that these may be revisited as the lexbind integration
moves forward.

cl.el is now at least 13 yrs old and the arguments precluding its
integration remain largely the same as they were when Dave Gillespie
advocated cl.el inclusion in core way back when.  In the interim a
good deal has changed with Emacs but the cl.el runtime ban still
lingers... though the justifications have been allowed to shift.

It is important that those willing to revisit/revise the cl.el
deficiencies have a clear roadmap/guideline as to what is acceptable,
why, and what the sane justifications for these guidelines are.

As it is, I've made a preliminary effort to indicate those cl.el like
features which are duplicated in other diverse emacs core libraries.
It is clear that these features are needed/desired or they wouldn't
exist.  What is not clear is why if these features are desirable must
they be reproduced w/ only minor modification simply to avoid the
appearance of haring the cl namespace.
In particular I would point to `edmacro-mismatch' as an example of
such needless bending over backwards.

--
/s_P\