On Sat, Nov 11, 2023, 14:09 Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

In my suggestion seq.el was just one of the examples not the only, nor
the main, package for such additions. So making it the only one, and
then objecting only to that, is a kind of a strawman, and completely
misses my point.

I objected to that part because I generally agree with the rest!!! I even said so early! Certainly pointing out a detail I think needs clarification can't be seen as a strawman. Only if I was trying to magnify it unreasonably to bring down your whole plan, which I am obviously not.

I included seq.el because I see nothing wrong with adding
cl-defmethods to seq.el with more efficient implementations for
specific types of sequences. Whether it does or doesn't make sense
depends on the specifics, which are not on the table at this time. I
certainly don't agree with rejecting the idea of adding specific
implementations to seq.el, let alone its wholesale rejection,

I don't reject it either. I just wrote that seq.el can not be "viewed as a drop-in replacement", which in common programming talk means we have to look at each "similar implemention" case by case and be attentive to where we use each, or to how we recommend its usage.

João