On 2/7/12 3:48 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> I've never understood what's wrong with including cl.el, nor why the
> 
> The main issue is namespace.  If someone goes through the code to rename
> it all to "cl-*", then we won't need to avoid using it.

I don't think the namespace is an issue. A _lot_ of people do, in
fact, (require 'cl), and packages continue to work for them. If there
were any serious conflicts, they'd already be fixed.

In other words, I don't think you can find an elisp package that only
works properly if cl isn't loaded.