Re: Functions with multiple optional arguments

[Emanuel Berg]

Jean Louis wrote:

>>> I do not load what is not needed.
>> 
>> Well, it's not about what's needed or not, there are
>> obviously several ways to do this as we have seen in this
>> thread already, and what `cl-defun' offers is another such
>> solution, one that some people would say is more clean than
>> the solutions with `or' and `setq'/`let' ...
>> 
>>> And Emacs Lisp is not Common Lisp, no need to conform
>>> to it.
>> 
>> Again, there is no need to do any of this but it remains
>> that `cl-defun' is an Elisp macro ...
>
> Let us say much of code comes from Common Lisp, then there
> is no need to rewrite too much, and then one uses Common
> Lisp related macros. It makes sense.

?

> But when code is much of Emacs Lisp, there is no need
> for it.

???

`cl-defun' is Elisp, if you need it or not is up to you ...

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal