Subject: Re: bug#7408: Linux patchutils: Development of the project?

From: Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 08:39:29 -0500

> The 'return' has been integral part of 'dolist' since the start.

Who cares?

> | After (require 'cl), `return' gets defined and things work as you
> | expect.

> The implementation in subr.el::dolist does not have any support for
> 'return'.

Again, who cares?  If you want to use `return' you need to require the
package that defines it.

> It is not that 'return' gets defined, but what happens is that loading
> CL clobbers that current definition pf 'dolist' by overwiting it with
> its own implementation:

And?  Why would you care?  Without looking at the source code, can you
tell the difference?

> Naturally, loading CL also defines other things. But the fundamental
> problem is two incompatible dolist implementations.

You still haven't shown any evidence of incompatibility.

Show me a piece of code which would work with CL's dolist (but without
CL's return) and yet doesn't work with subr.el's dolist.

        Stefan