bug#57079: 29.0.50; Performance of seq-uniq is not very good

[Drew Adams]

> We used to limit ourselves to what was in Common Lisp
> when the library was called cl.el, but now that it's cl-lib.el, we've
> opened up the possibility of adding whatever we think is useful in
> Emacs.

Why would/did you do that?  Why isn't cl-lib.el
reserved for Common Lisp compatibility code?

An answer of, essentially, "because we've already
made that mistake" isn't, IMHO, a reasonable reason
to continue making it.

"whatever we think is useful in Emacs" - seriously?

Not intending/expecting flames.  Just one opinion.

Emacs Lisp could & should have a Common Lisp
compatibility library.  That was the original
intention of cl.el, I believe, and that should
still be an intention, regardless of where that
lives.  If cl-lib.el is now too far polluted to
serve as that, then maybe consider moving stuff
that does have that intention somewhere else.