Re: dash.el [was: Re: Imports / inclusion of s.el into Emacs]

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   1) Incongruent functions: A situation we already have with
   deprecated functions, function aliases, and things like seq which
   overlaps with other emacs functions (albeit somewhat differently).

Deprecated functions are marked as such, function aliases as
well. Some functions, specifically in s.el, could have been aliases
but are instead fresh implementations.  It is definitly not the same
situation.

And don't you think that if there are badly named, or overlapping
functions (in the context of overall Emacs, in isolation they might be
well named), then instead of continuting adding more of the same
situation, that one should instead try and fix it?

   2) The s- namespace: This has already happened. If we put a function
   called `s-starts-with' or `-map' into core, we will break quite a lot of
   MELPA. This would look poor and potentially like bad will.

Emacs cannot control what happens outside of Emacs -- if the library
was called string-x.el and was super popular, and the prefix was
string- the situation would have been exactly the same.  Adding a
function would break code, Emacs cannot control that.

   3) "who don't coordinate with us". Magnar will respond if
   emailed. Is reading this mailing list really a criteria that makes
   sense.

That is asking Emacs for coordinating with someone else.

   And you have missed the advantages: having libraries like s and
   dash available, will bring to Emacs a set of functionality that
   many people like, as well as bringing in a lot of developers who
   have already contributed to s.el, dash and the rest.

And nobody is against adding functionality -- the issue is adding many
overlapping, slightly similar, differently named functions.  It is not
the functionality that is the topic here.