Re: seq.el and the complexity of Emacs Lisp.

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hello, Jim.

On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 15:49:01 -0800, Jim Porter wrote:
> On 11/9/2023 1:20 PM, João Távora wrote:
> > Examples could be an implementation of lazy sequences
> > for example. So it stands to reason that there's no (obvious) reason
> > to preload seq.el,

> In fact, I was considering adding support to seq.el for generators, 
> which we could consider a kind of lazy sequence. I'm not entirely sure I 
> *need* it yet, but it could make a few things in Eshell easier.

Please don't.  This would be yet one more unnecessary complicated
abstraction for which future maintainers would curse you for introducing.
I don't know what a "generator" is, exactly, but it would likely involve
a plethora of backticks, funcalls, generic functions, and the like, all
things which make debugging difficult, if not very difficult.

The Subject: line of this thread mentions complexity.  This is something
we should be trying to reduce in Emacs, not increase.

[ .... ]

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).