Re: is requiring cl bad?

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

>> I was under the impression that requiring cl was bad (TM).  I can't
>> remember why.  Is it still so?
>
> The CL package is unclean w.r.t to its use of the namespace.  Using its
> macros is tolerated because it only imposes this namespace mess during
> byte-compilation of your package, but using its functions imposes the
> mess during actual use of your package.
>
> 24.3 finally provides an alternative: `cl-lib' which offers the
> same functionality but in a namespace-clean way (i.e. using a "cl-"
> prefix everywhere).

This is a silly solution. 
The right solution is to implement a package system.


-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__                     http://www.informatimago.com/
A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.