Re: CL package serious deficiencies

[Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 19:43, Nix <nix@esperi.org.uk> wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2012, Drew Adams outgrape:
>> 2. There are lots of people who use cl.el.  There are even lots of people who
>> systematically write libraries that depend on cl.el functions at runtime (not
>> just macros at compile time).  Unfortunately.  My impression is that this might
>> be increasingly the case, and that perhaps younger or newer Emacs users are more
>> likely to do so.
>
> I've never understood what's wrong with including cl.el, nor why the
> byte-compiler should warn specially about it, any more than it warns
> about any other package. XEmacs has had cl.el in the dumped set for
> absolutely ages and it has caused zero problems as far as I know.
>
> So what's wrong with using it? It's there, it's always available, and if
> you steer clear of the buggy bits it provides some useful facilities.
> But Emacs packages persist in reimplementing them over and over in
> package after package rather than just requiring 'cl and being done with
> it.

There are things that do not work if you include cl.el at run time.
You may not notice the problems and tracking it down has been quite
difficult some times.