Re: CL package serious deficiencies

[Daniel Colascione]

On 2/7/12 1:23 PM, Nix wrote:
> (FWIW, the *last* time I asked about this, many years ago, I was told
> that runtime use of cl was out of the question because it used too much
> memory. I presume that this argument is obsolete :) )

I've long been an advocate of dumping cl with Emacs; XEmacs does so
without problems. CLisms simply result in cleaner, smaller code than
one can write using nothing but elisp primitives.

The latest objection is that dumping CL would Emacs would increase the
size of the printed and bound Emacs Lisp Reference Manual from the
FSF. I find this objection unconvincing because it applies to _any_
new feature, and I don't think we're against adding new features to Emacs.

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature