cl-defun vs defun (was: Should diff.elisp.xfuncname match cl-lib macros?)

["Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob@tcd.ie>]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> What is the feature for which people typically use cl-defun?
> Maybe we should make it a standard, builtin feature of defun.

As described under "(cl) Argument Lists", cl-defun extends defun to
support CL argument lists (with default values for optional arguments,
keyword arguments, etc.) and enclose the function body in an implicit
block.  In my limited experience, the former is by far the more
frequently used feature.

I, for one, would welcome support for CL argument lists in vanilla
defun.  Has this been discussed before?

-- 
Basil