Re: CL package serious deficiencies

[Nix]

On 6 Feb 2012, Drew Adams outgrape:
> 2. There are lots of people who use cl.el.  There are even lots of people who
> systematically write libraries that depend on cl.el functions at runtime (not
> just macros at compile time).  Unfortunately.  My impression is that this 
> might
> be increasingly the case, and that perhaps younger or newer Emacs users are 
> more
> likely to do so.

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. XEmacs has had cl.el in the dumped set for
absolutely ages and it has caused zero problems as far as I know.

So what's wrong with using it? It's there, it's always available, and if
you steer clear of the buggy bits it provides some useful facilities.
But Emacs packages persist in reimplementing them over and over in
package after package rather than just requiring 'cl and being done with
it.

-- 
NULL && (void)