From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Artur Malabarba Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Rationalising c[ad]\{2,5\}r. Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 09:54:44 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20150311214324.GA2952@acm.fritz.box> <50545da4-91f3-41fc-b408-07668ffc2f19@default> Reply-To: bruce.connor.am@gmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11346724a16b390511145f19 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1426154101 24959 80.91.229.3 (12 Mar 2015 09:55:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 09:55:01 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 12 10:54:54 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YVzpN-0005Iw-0y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 10:54:53 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58914 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YVzpM-0006HY-5a for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 05:54:52 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58253) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YVzpH-0006EY-MH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 05:54:48 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YVzpG-0001qw-CU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 05:54:47 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-la0-x235.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c03::235]:32929) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YVzpF-0001qp-Uz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 05:54:46 -0400 Original-Received: by labmn12 with SMTP id mn12so14646908lab.0 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 02:54:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=RnfT3YTnfbHV+JOko6amzoJ4KgwGL6y1Wlbj95aiGCs=; b=0x7hRP4QWtRXhjJ8OeAJXA1xPJXFVCMyyJUB7knY6T3XFOMim0AqdyYCPZwWnPIRko FcfHfBmxWuEIzZfh2uyi0MELOYlcl9G7W6ULdTm6C4F43CJgJIrctbN5r6vaq9Zs6Vtu /md3yFx7pELXqQOJG6Jt1enRk7VROZuFnbIuIwlbCVURrNyVHnAguUVS/WclNr4kj4Up XxMlLXv9VwHLHV+05FlhC68pjN+5z+QCkyOvP7/X24jWYEyjZ4HnEa5Auesm+WouP2jY KL+4eD2xcgDVhNnAhNYc9LQrFuU8I1q8+7eGx4mKtsmbkfqt3XO9ngMJzGs/vJAI1He+ //MA== X-Received: by 10.112.41.236 with SMTP id i12mr9864357lbl.14.1426154084984; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 02:54:44 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.112.207.225 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 02:54:44 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.112.207.225 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 02:54:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <50545da4-91f3-41fc-b408-07668ffc2f19@default> X-Google-Sender-Auth: IvvUpoxR0U0XtU3e8m8ABEl5WOc X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:4010:c03::235 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:183805 Archived-At: --001a11346724a16b390511145f19 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > It doesn't much matter where they were defined. They are basic > Lisp. Who cares where `setq' is defined, in terms of modularity > or namespaces? > (...) > That was an even bigger mistake - doing that systematically, I mean. > `cl-car', `cl-cdr',... Sheesh - what silliness. > > `car' is Lisp. It is not special to Common Lisp. > `letf' is Emacs Lisp. It is not Common Lisp. > > Neither should get the `cl-' prefix. Neither is emulating > Common Lisp, and neither is confusable with something else > already existing in Emacs Lisp. You confuse me with someone who cares about this package. I was just trying to answer your questions. As long as I can develop packages for 24.1 without having to jump through hoops, I don't care at all where all this functions are defined. > > >> and there will be compatibility aliases for cl-caaadr etc.. > > > > > > Why? Why is that needed? > > > > To not make it harder for developers to support Emacs 24.X > > Well, if you mean keeping `caaadr', then yes. It's `cl-caaadr' > that has no raison d'etre. Keep `caaadr'; toss `cl-caaadr'. Has, `caaadr' always existed (since 24.1) without explicitly `require'ing the `cl' package? If the answer is yes, then I'm fine with removing the prefixed alias. > Putting it like you did is trying to make a virtue out of > necessity (or a purse out of a sow's ear, if you prefer). Again, forgive me if I misexpressed myself as someone who cares. I wasn't defending the package. I just want to ensure we don't break existing code (or, if we do, at least ensure it's not a pain to unbreak). --001a11346724a16b390511145f19 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> It doesn't much matter where they were defined.=C2= =A0 They are basic
> Lisp.=C2=A0 Who cares where `setq' is defined, in terms of modular= ity
> or namespaces?
> (...)
> That was an even bigger mistake - doing that systematically, I mean. > `cl-car', `cl-cdr',...=C2=A0 Sheesh - what silliness.
>
> `car' is Lisp.=C2=A0 It is not special to Common Lisp.
> `letf' is Emacs Lisp.=C2=A0 It is not Common Lisp.
>
> Neither should get the `cl-' prefix.=C2=A0 Neither is emulating > Common Lisp, and neither is confusable with something else
> already existing in Emacs Lisp.

You confuse me with someone who cares about this package. I = was just trying to answer your questions.

As long as I can develop packages for 24.1 without having to= jump through hoops, I don't care at all where all this functions are d= efined.

> > >> and there will be compatibility aliases f= or cl-caaadr etc..
> > >
> > > Why? Why is that needed?
> >
> > To not make it harder for developers to support Emacs 24.X
>
> Well, if you mean keeping `caaadr', then yes.=C2=A0 It's `cl-c= aaadr'
> that has no raison d'etre.=C2=A0 Keep `caaadr'; toss `cl-caaad= r'.

Has, `caaadr' always existed (since 24.1) without explic= itly `require'ing the `cl' package?

If the answer is yes, then I'm fine with removing the pr= efixed alias.

> Putting it like you did is trying to make a virtue out = of
> necessity (or a purse out of a sow's ear, if you prefer).

Again, forgive me if I misexpressed myself as someone who ca= res. I wasn't defending the package. I just want to ensure we don't= break existing code (or, if we do, at least ensure it's not a pain to = unbreak).

--001a11346724a16b390511145f19--