> You're proposing that we adopt a policy of adding functions to Emacs's
> standard name space as if that cost nothing. Any function that anyone
> thinks provides the tiniest simplification, we would add.
> Adding so many functions would be detrimental in many ways.
> It would mean more names to document in the Emacs Lisp Reference Manual.
> It would mean more pages to print the Emacs Lisp Reference Manual, making it cost more.
> It would mean more text to maintain when something changes.
These are all very valid points. I'm a bit surprised they come that late in the debate. I even had to formulate some of these myself as examples of refutations that addressed the central part of my argument.
So, does that mean that once something "ships" with Emacs it's written in stone forever? What could be good rules of thumb to be able to rename or alias something?