From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: CL package suggestion Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:06:21 -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: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1333544807 23101 80.91.229.3 (4 Apr 2012 13:06:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 13:06:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Ilya Shlyakhter Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 04 15:06:46 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 1SFPv8-0007Yv-HV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2012 15:06:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50694 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SFPv7-0002Pm-RB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:06:41 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:41889) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SFPv4-0002PK-9K for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:06:39 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SFPuq-0007eo-RW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:06:37 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.183]:51652) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SFPuq-0007eF-OA; Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:06:24 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AicFAKU/KE9FpZV7/2dsb2JhbACBX5x7eYhwnhmGGQSbGYM4UQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,1,1325480400"; d="scan'208";a="172001986" Original-Received: from 69-165-149-123.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([69.165.149.123]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 04 Apr 2012 09:06:21 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 55E5A59388; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 09:06:21 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Ilya Shlyakhter's message of "Tue, 3 Apr 2012 21:56:31 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.94 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.183 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:149367 Archived-At: > 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? The name is different, so the compiler can definitely tell the difference. > If they are, and calling cl-remove wouldn't trigger a warning, > wouldn't remove-if calls also become warning-less? Not necessarily, no. Stefan