[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: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 06:20:14 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux)

David De La Harpe Golden <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 17/12/12 19:09, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
>>> 24.3 finally provides an alternative: `cl-lib' which offers the
>>> same functionality but in a namespace-clean way (i.e. using a "cl-"
>>> prefix everywhere).
>> This is a silly solution.
>> The right solution is to implement a package system.
> If emacs ever did go toward adding new facilities in the general area
> of modularity (however unlikely it is in reality in the near future),

Sounds like a good candidate for emacs 25. Someone complained we didn't
have a roadmap... ;)

> I reckon Ron Garret's common lisp land "lexicons" work [1]

Thanks for the link, I will read it later.
Ivan Kanis

Temporary routing anomaly.
    -- BOFH excuse number 35

reply via email to

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