[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: un-deprecating CL
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: un-deprecating CL |
Date: |
Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:29:53 -0400 |
> 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.
That's not cogent. The fact that one part of the system is complex is
no reason to make another part unnecessarily complex.
If you want to understand my decision, the crucial point is that I consider
the complexity of these functions a negative.
It isn't clear to me what you mean by "documenting them with great
importance."
We would have to spend a lot of text and attention on documenting them
if they were in such a central place in the language.
- 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, 2007/09/17
- Re: un-deprecating CL,
Richard Stallman <=
- 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
- Re: un-deprecating CL, David O'Toole, 2007/09/16