From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lennart Borgman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: CL package serious deficiencies Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 23:32:34 +0100 Message-ID: References: <33271707.post@talk.nabble.com> <87fwemcwlx.fsf@spindle.srvr.nix> <87d39pgdu4.fsf@gnus.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1328740391 19302 80.91.229.3 (8 Feb 2012 22:33:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 22:33:11 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Nix , Emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 08 23:33:09 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RvG4Z-0008G5-OS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:33:07 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37088 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RvG4Z-00063w-At for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:33:07 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:39188) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RvG4S-00063K-SG for Emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:33:05 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RvG4O-0000QQ-0U for Emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:33:00 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-lpp01m020-f169.google.com ([209.85.217.169]:48304) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RvG4N-0000Q1-Pj for Emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:32:55 -0500 Original-Received: by lbbgg6 with SMTP id gg6so627291lbb.0 for ; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:32:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=KepOyC/nCV8NqnfxNSx6pbxPwGdzKWljbMDnsUoRqAQ=; b=H8Dv5/wYB7vr9D5Xf3GA6MYKd240qQd+JbrZxdTXT7he0xYDVwXpumwJYueQJt5uIZ Eth06H1fP+TB3wMw7iaQu1qio3OVswBZLGu0Jg1nfMjQmr/sAKAdkNxp0sab6CoiHFFb 9G7aGPl05M0bxW4h9rPl/1m1h9ta8Vofg6zIQ= Original-Received: by 10.112.40.101 with SMTP id w5mr8357023lbk.97.1328740374137; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:32:54 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.112.12.6 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:32:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87d39pgdu4.fsf@gnus.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 209.85.217.169 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:148381 Archived-At: On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 23:28, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote: > Nix writes: > >> I've never understood what's wrong with including cl.el, nor why the >> byte-compiler should warn specially about it, any more than it warns >> about any other package. > > Since the beginning of time, the Emacs maintainer (whoever they were at > the time) just hasn't liked Common Lisp. =C2=A0The stated rationale for n= ot > "allowing" cl.el usage has shifted around a lot over the years, though. > ("It's too big run-time-wise", "we're going to reimplement Emacs in > Scheme", and now "the manual will be too big" and "it uses the wrong > prefix".) > > Meanwhile, most of the people who program Emacs Lisp daily (i.e., people > like me) have always been in favour of including it. =C2=A0Who doesn't wa= nt > `incf'? =C2=A0`plusp'? =C2=A0`delete-if-not'? =C2=A0`position'? =C2=A0So = you get all these > hundreds of reimplementations of all these necessary functions, only > spread over all the different packages. >From someone who do not know at all: Should perhaps some of the functions in cl.el etc be reimplemented now that elisp knows lexical binding?