[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: un-deprecating CL
From: |
David O'Toole |
Subject: |
Re: un-deprecating CL |
Date: |
Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:05:05 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/23.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
> It is added complexity that we don't need. To add them to standard
> Emacs Lisp functions would call for documenting them with great
> importance.
But defcustom, make-hash-table, define-derived-mode,
make-network-process, etc all use keyword arguments as far as I can
tell.
It isn't clear to me what you mean by "documenting them with great
importance."
> It is one thing to have `function*' and `defun*' in a compatibility
> package. It is quite another to give them legitimacy in Emacs Lisp.
For whatever it's worth, I would not describe CL as a compatibility
package. The manual's overview says that it is designed to make Emacs
Lisp programming more convenient. (The part on porting Common Lisp
code is Appendix D.)
--
David O'Toole
address@hidden
http://dto.freeshell.org/notebook/
- Re: un-deprecating CL, (continued)
- Re: un-deprecating CL, Richard Stallman, 2007/09/18
- Re: un-deprecating CL, T. V. Raman, 2007/09/15
- Re: un-deprecating CL, Richard Stallman, 2007/09/16
- Re: un-deprecating CL, Richard Stallman, 2007/09/16
- Re: un-deprecating CL, Joe Wells, 2007/09/16
- Re: un-deprecating CL, Richard Stallman, 2007/09/17
- Re: un-deprecating CL,
David O'Toole <=
- Re: un-deprecating CL, Richard Stallman, 2007/09/17
- Re: un-deprecating CL, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2007/09/18
- Re: un-deprecating CL, Richard Stallman, 2007/09/18
- Re: un-deprecating CL, David O'Toole, 2007/09/18
- Re: un-deprecating CL, Richard Stallman, 2007/09/19
- Re: un-deprecating CL, David O'Toole, 2007/09/19
- Re: un-deprecating CL, David O'Toole, 2007/09/17
- Re: un-deprecating CL, Richard Stallman, 2007/09/17
- Re: un-deprecating CL, Richard Stallman, 2007/09/17
- Re: un-deprecating CL, Johan Bockgård, 2007/09/18