Any chance of a `flatten-list' to merge 4 current versions?

Any chance of a `flatten-list' to merge 4 current versions?

[Stephen Eglen]

Hello,
--text follows this line--
I'm writing some lisp for another package (ESS) not included in Emacs.
I would like to use a `flatten-list' defun, but was surprised to see
this is not included in elisp.  However, a quick grep of the lisp
directory showed:

% grep -r 'defun .*flatten-list' .
./gnus/message.el:(defun message-flatten-list (list)
./lpr.el:(defun lpr-flatten-list (&rest list)
./lpr.el:(defun lpr-flatten-list-1 (list)
./ps-print.el:(defun ps-flatten-list (&rest list)
./ps-print.el:(defun ps-flatten-list-1 (list)
./eshell/esh-util.el:(defun eshell-flatten-list (args)

i.e. four different packages, all quite widely used, have their own
version.  Would it be worth providing just one common version called
`flatten-list'?

Thanks, Stephen

Re: Any chance of a `flatten-list' to merge 4 current versions?

[Richard Stallman]

    i.e. four different packages, all quite widely used, have their own
    version.  Would it be worth providing just one common version called
    `flatten-list'?

Just 4 is not enough, but if there are a few more, then we would
want to put it in Emacs.

The way it's done now, it does not need to be in the Lisp manual.

Re: Any chance of a `flatten-list' to merge 4 current versions?

[Kevin Rodgers]

Richard Stallman wrote:
 > Just 4 is not enough, but if there are a few more, then we would
 > want to put it in Emacs.

To the extent there is duplication between 4 packages, that is
unfortunate.  Not correcting it could lead to more duplication, which
would be more unfortunate.

Sound familiar? :-)

-- 
Kevin Rodgers

Re: Any chance of a `flatten-list' to merge 4 current versions?

[Richard Stallman]

     > Just 4 is not enough, but if there are a few more, then we would
     > want to put it in Emacs.

    To the extent there is duplication between 4 packages, that is
    unfortunate.  Not correcting it could lead to more duplication, which
    would be more unfortunate.

That is what I said about duplication of features for the user.
Duplication of small functions like this is not a problem.

    Sound familiar? :-)

It's a good example of how a statement mean for one context
can be misleading when applied to another context.