Re: [PATCH] sequence manipulation functions

[Nicolas Petton]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

>> 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.

Sure, I agree.

>
> 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.

Good point.

>
> 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.

So, should I keep working on it? I was planning to start working on the
documentation. Would the Sequences section of the Elisp manual be the
right place?

Cheers,
Nico
-- 
Nicolas Petton
http://nicolas-petton.fr