RE: Rationalising c[ad]\{2,5\}r.

[Drew Adams]

> > > and there will be compatibility aliases for cl-caaadr etc..
> 
> > Why? Why is that needed?
> 
> Because there are lots of uses of cl-c[ad]\{3,4\}r in the field.  There
> are currently 56 uses in the Emacs sources, which we could easily fix,
> but there will be an unknown, possibly high, number in packages and code
> we don't control.  It would be ill-mannered simply to remove these names.
> They should be marked as obsolete, perhaps.

See my reply to Artur/Bruce.  I meant only that the `cl-' versions are
not needed.  We should definitely not remove the c[ad]\{3,4\}r.

If there are already "lots of" cl-c[ad]\{3,4\}r in the field, then
that would be too bad.  But I doubt that that is the case.

Occurrences of such barbarities would, I expect, represent only the
exceptional overzealous, early-adopter, conversion of *existing*
c[ad]\{3,4\}r.  The 56 uses in the Emacs sources are in fact a case
in point.  Who would write (cl-cadddr (cl-cdar x)) in new code?
 
And even if it is case that there are "lots of" such occurrences out
there, we should just apologize for our recent-past silliness, redefine
the cl-c[ad]\{3,4\}r as temporary (only) aliases for c[ad]\{3,4\}r,
deprecate those aliases, and remove them as soon as possible thereafter.

I would be quite surprised if there are really a lot of cl-c[ad]\{3,4\}r
out there.  But there are no doubt lots of c[ad]\{3,4\}r out there.