Re: is requiring cl bad?

[Ivan Kanis]

Hi Xue,

I guess my point is if I decide to use CL functions I should not be
polluted with warnings when I compile.

To get rid of all warnings I had to put this on top:

(require 'cl)

and tack at the end:

;; Local Variables:
;; byte-compile-warnings: (not cl-functions)
;; End:

It shouldn't be so obscure. At least it ought to be documented
somewhere...

Xue Fuqiao <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 10:29:30 +0100
> Ivan Kanis <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> I was under the impression that requiring cl was bad (TM). I can't
>> remember why. Is it still so?
>
> You can see these pages:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2003-08/msg00436.html
> http://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms-lisp.html
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-09/msg01472.html

Thanks for the links it made interesting reading. 

I understand RMS doesn't like Common Lisp because it uses weird
keywords. That is fine by me.



> BTW, what does "TM" mean(English is not my native language)?

Trade Mark, it's just a joke.
-- 
Ivan Kanis
http://ivan.kanis.fr

A cruel crafty crocodile,
Which in false grief hiding his harmful guile,
Doth weep full sore, and sheddeth tender tears.
    -- Edmund Spenser