Re: CL package serious deficiencies

[Helmut Eller]

* Stefan Monnier [2012-02-10 14:38] 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.
>
> Actually, I like many parts of Common Lisp.  E.g. I intend to move the
> compiler macros to the Elisp core (they're pretty much there already since
> they require support in the bytecompiler).  I also like the `setf' macro
> and related machinery.  Of course defstruct is also good (because "more
> types" is good in my world).

At the risk of stating the obvious: we could define compiler-macros for
keyword-using functions like position and automatically rewrite all uses
to a keyword-less implementation like cl-position.  Then everybody could
use the prefix-less version without the need to (require 'cl) at
runtime.

Helmut