Re: CL package serious deficiencies

[Lennart Borgman]

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 01:38, Daniel Colascione <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 2/7/12 3:48 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> I've never understood what's wrong with including cl.el, nor why the
>>
>> The main issue is namespace.  If someone goes through the code to rename
>> it all to "cl-*", then we won't need to avoid using it.
>
> I don't think the namespace is an issue. A _lot_ of people do, in
> fact, (require 'cl), and packages continue to work for them. If there
> were any serious conflicts, they'd already be fixed.
>
> In other words, I don't think you can find an elisp package that only
> works properly if cl isn't loaded.

I have seen the problem. My conclusion is rather that most users do
not understand complex problems very well.