Re: Emacs Package Management

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

    Could we then privide aliases like "cl-loop" for "loop" ?

I am not against it.

    Maybe we could include Cl functions in the Emacs core incrementaly then?
    Each CL function moved to the core would require an agreement on the
    functions inclusion and a documentation patch.

That's more or less what we've been doing.  Originally I strove very
hard to keep Emacs itself small.  Many basic and obviously useful
functions were not standardly available, but they were in CL.  Since
then we have made a number of them standard, and we could certainly
do this for more of them in the future when it seems best.

But some of the CL facilities are overly complex.  And some,
specifically setf and friends, are not implemented quite right in the
Emacs context, which makes them ugly to include.

David Kastrup wrote

    I would prefer cl:loop here.

cl-loop fits better with Emacs Lisp, in which we do not
have Common Lisp packages.