> > The (implicit) decision to diverge further from Common Lisp has
> > been made a while ago, by prefixing the CL functions with `cl' and
> > importing the `seq' and `map' libraries, which provide similar
> > functionality, but with a different interface.
> Maybe (though, I don't think there was such decision, implicit or
> not - "seq" and "map" functions also have an according prefix - I
> wouldn't say we are converging are diverging to/from Common Lisp
> at all, but give developers a stylistic choice). But here were
> are talking about a construct that exists in pure Elisp, and OTOH
> also in Common Lisp, sharing the same name. If there is not
> really a need to make the semantics differ, I prefer to leave
> things as they are, because everything else would probably be
> more confusing than helpful.