Re: [PATCH] sequence manipulation functions

[Stefan Monnier]

> I agree.  Promoting some sequence-related cl-lib functions would also be
> perfectly fine with me.  I have no problem with adopting CL names, but I
> do feel that the current standard library is lacking.

FWIW, I think it's perfectly OK for Elisp packages to start with
a list of `require's.

But w.r.t CL's sequence manipulation functions, the problem is that
there is no structure there, so it's hard to find the functions
you need if you don't already know their name.

A lot of Elisp's "standard library" shares this fundamental problem.
The "prefix convention" is not useful only as a way to avoid name
collisions (which would imply that it can be "ignored" for "core
functions") but is also a way to structure the library, and so far the
core functions have not being doing a very good job of it.


        Stefan