From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ilya Shlyakhter Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: CL package suggestion Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 21:56:31 -0400 Message-ID: References: <27y5qciwgd.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <9lty10iwdr.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3036388b7a4e3004bcd0bbc9 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1333504605 9526 80.91.229.3 (4 Apr 2012 01:56:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 01:56:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 04 03:56:45 2012 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 1SFFSk-0000pZ-M9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2012 03:56:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42209 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SFFSk-0002ED-30 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 21:56:42 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:54164) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SFFSh-0002E7-8m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 21:56:40 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SFFSf-0006xX-Aw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 21:56:38 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-gx0-f169.google.com ([209.85.161.169]:62252) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SFFSb-0006wi-Op; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 21:56:33 -0400 Original-Received: by ggeq1 with SMTP id q1so212880gge.0 for ; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:56:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=4tqLaMP/BX6W1spUQjJ0r+9cUjk+dlDPci6Ua3viUTQ=; b=D0D5bwyb27cfYGwBBRpdz3J/n9oADkWWQIFqAgovzxYXrfHlSBFC2OcHP+L0W4095u 1OUXNkKBW/gqKH499T71Crwildtk9tkPlaXZYx+M5pDylzTyLKqjgTekvNJ8kxf4MMOL 7ocUkLD03uOqIMGuGFEDqNRTZzCkHa2lmhBMqRmfS+J6YC8MV4Hx+/2jw4xC83Fe7jr2 nPV1Ne/1o8CfhbTcNUm3OndzD/9+rQOcjpLv450i1iBDRC9aXw5F/0e/LxpA6jhFxII8 OZc+v/e1vgRvUILu+vTEsXEkRDDX3Szzs/gkj8WQ83ilZnON7Ny9WqrtNCywdg9RXXvl 54+Q== Original-Received: by 10.236.125.168 with SMTP id z28mr13234056yhh.120.1333504591416; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:56:31 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.147.168.13 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 18:56:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Google-Sender-Auth: FdR4ifZi7Nqx-saGuInWvawkHOw X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 209.85.161.169 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:149361 Archived-At: --20cf3036388b7a4e3004bcd0bbc9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Agree about cl- being better than ecl- . Btw, if remove-if becomes defalias'ed to cl-remove-if, aren't the two calls indistinguishable to the byte compiler? If they are, and calling cl-remove wouldn't trigger a warning, wouldn't remove-if calls also become warning-less? And if they would, isn't it simpler to just allow calling remove-if? :) ilya On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > I'm just glad this is being considered :) It'd be great to see this in > > 24.2 . > > Patch welcome (and BTW, I'd prefer the "cl-" prefix over the "ecl-" > prefix). > It's never too early to start. > > > Stefan > --20cf3036388b7a4e3004bcd0bbc9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Agree about cl- being better than ecl- .

Btw, if remove-if becomes d= efalias'ed to cl-remove-if, aren't the two calls indistinguishable<= br>to the byte compiler?=A0=A0 If they are, and calling cl-remove wouldn= 9;t trigger a warning,
wouldn't remove-if calls also become warning-less?=A0=A0 And if they wo= uld, isn't it simpler
to just allow calling remove-if? :)

ily= a

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Stefan = Monnier <m= onnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> I'm just glad thi= s is being considered :) =A0It'd be great to see this in
> 24.2 .

Patch welcome (and BTW, I'd prefer the "cl-" prefix ove= r the "ecl-" prefix).
It's never too early to start.


=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Stefan

--20cf3036388b7a4e3004bcd0bbc9--