Re: moving more cl seq/mapping support into core

[Daniel Colascione]

On 9/30/2010 8:16 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
> Daniel Colascione <address@hidden> writes:
>> CL really should be dumped along with Emacs proper.
> 
> cl.el is a combination of good useful things that and horrible ugly
> things (this isn't a comment on the CL language, btw -- many of the
> problems with cl.el are issue with its implementation and consistency
> with elisp).

Can you point to a few examples? Parts of cl are ugly (the common use of
make-symbol instead of gensym, for example, makes macroexpansions
difficult to read). But those don't affect functionality or interaction
with other packages.

The other issue is the set of extension functions --- defun*, defmacro*
and so on. If your point is that the functionality offered by these
functions should instead of folded into the regular elisp versions, then
that's a good thing, but news to me.

> Of course, there's a solution which would probably make everybody
> happy:  adopt the good things only, and fix some of the problems with
> the horrible ugly things so that they can be adopted.  But people
> advocating cl.el seem to usually stop short of putting any effort into
> doing that...

What are the good things/ What are the "horrible ugly thing"? What
criteria can you use to distinguish them?