RE: If records are not sequences, why does aref work on records?

[Drew Adams]

> > If the intention is to add a new kind of sequence, for
> > example to add a record type and have it be considered
> > a type of sequence, then I think it should support all
> > sequence features, just like other sequences.
> >
> > If it does not support everything intended by "sequence"
> > then I think we should not present it as a sequence.  In
> > particular, it should not be documented as a sequence in
> > that case.
> >
> > As to what a sequence is, one guide is to refer to Common
> > Lisp, which carefully defines sequences and sequence
> > operations.
> 
> So what do you think about the byte-code type, which supports many, but
> not all, sequence operations?  Is that a long-standing bug?

I know nothing about it; sorry.  If it is then it is.

Emacs, like Common Lisp, should have a well-defined sequence
type.  We aren't required to model ours on CL's, but other
things being equal it wouldn't be a bad idea to look to CL
for guidance/inspiration.

Just one opinion.