[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: is requiring cl bad?

From: Ivan Kanis
Subject: Re: is requiring cl bad?
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 12:00:25 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux)

Hi Xue,

I guess my point is if I decide to use CL functions I should not be
polluted with warnings when I compile.

To get rid of all warnings I had to put this on top:

(require 'cl)

and tack at the end:

;; Local Variables:
;; byte-compile-warnings: (not cl-functions)
;; End:

It shouldn't be so obscure. At least it ought to be documented

Xue Fuqiao <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 10:29:30 +0100
> Ivan Kanis <address@hidden> wrote:
>> I was under the impression that requiring cl was bad (TM). I can't
>> remember why. Is it still so?
> You can see these pages:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2003-08/msg00436.html
> http://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms-lisp.html
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-09/msg01472.html

Thanks for the links it made interesting reading. 

I understand RMS doesn't like Common Lisp because it uses weird
keywords. That is fine by me.

> BTW, what does "TM" mean(English is not my native language)?

Trade Mark, it's just a joke.
Ivan Kanis

A cruel crafty crocodile,
Which in false grief hiding his harmful guile,
Doth weep full sore, and sheddeth tender tears.
    -- Edmund Spenser

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]