Closed VojtechStep closed 4 years ago
I've used function because at the time request.el documentation had those in their examples.
The emacs manual says the following about cl-lib:
New code should use cl-lib rather than cl.
Given that cl-lib was introduced by default in emacs 24.3 which was released on March 10, 2013. I think its pretty safe to update to cl-function
and break compatibility with emacs < 24.3.
Any thoughts on this?
I don't the package supports emacs < 24.3 even now, given that cl-lib is already required and the minimal version declared in the header is 25.
If cl-function was in cl-lib from the beggining (I have to admit I didn't do any research except for replacing it on my machine and seeing it works), there should be no reason not to use it.
It looks like it has been supported since the inception of cl-lib: http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=emacs/elpa.git;a=blob;f=packages/cl-lib/cl-lib.el;hb=5e7858e072ce22091a532cdb1cd00a075f8e3d0e#l85
In this case I'll upgrade the code to use cl-function
and release a new version
I've published a new version of the package, 1.2.0
, which fixes this issue.
The
function*
macro is an alias forcl-function
fromcl-lib
, but only when the deprecatedcl
package is required.I use emacs build from source, so it's possible that it works in other versions, and since nobody else is complaining, that is probably the case.
I'm not sure in what version was
cl-function
introduced, so I don't know how replacing all instances offunction*
would influence backwards emacs compatibility.