Re: seq.el and the complexity of Emacs Lisp.

[Björn Bidar]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> Could we replace all the cl-lib sequence function calls with seq-
> calls, in core and GNU ELPA code?  Seq is simpler and cleaner, so that
> would be an improvement.  We could keep cl-lib permanently for
> compatibility for external code, but it would not need to be loaded
> (into Emacs or your brain) very often.

But does that really make sense? Using either is somewhat subjective.
Saying lets just drop these in a sec to all package authors seems
overreaching.

You write like lets just remove cl-lib and forget that is existed.
As mentioned elsewhere cl-lib isn't just sequence functions..
It does sound again like there's someting wrong with cl-lib because it's
cl-lib.