Re: CL package serious deficiencies

[Nix]

On 9 Feb 2012, Richard Stallman outgrape:

> Duplication of code is not necessarily a bad thing.
> I learned in writing GCC that it's often cleaner for each
> program to have a function that does what it wants
> than to push to make them shared.

This is often true, particularly when the functions differ in small but
annoying-to-characterize ways.

I really, really doubt that this true of e.g. 'plusp' though. :)

> However, when it is clear a standard function would be useful, we can
> add one.  We have added several functions that were previously in CL.
> Maybe some others are worth adding now.  But that does not mean we
> have to choose all or nothing.

OK. It's probably best to at least generate a starting list by looking
at the heavily-duplicated stuff. Things in cl that nobody is
reimplementing are clearly not worth migrating out... and if we can make
the things we migrate more elispy at the same time, so much the better!

-- 
NULL && (void)