karlheg(a)inetarena.com (Karl M. Hegbloom) writes: Yes, I'll name one good reason: you should try not to change code that it not actively maintained by the XEmacs team without a good reason. Changing (car (car foo)) to (caar foo) is not a good reason. No, it would actually be slower. `car' has its own byte-code, while a new `caar' subr would have to be invoked through the normal means of `funcall', ending up much slower than double BCAR. Witness the joys of Emacs Lisp! No. The forms are entirely equivalent, both in Common Lisp and in Emacs Lisp. In fact, the latter is silently converted to former at read-time. You mean `(,var ...), right? Besides the obvious readability improvement, you might count as an advantage that the new-style backquotes are compatible with Common Lisp. But these reasons do not warrant for changing code not maintained by us. When you write new code, however, feel free to use caar/#'(lambda ...)/new-style-backquotes/etc. -- Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr&gt; | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia --------------------------------+-------------------------------- The meta-Turing test counts a thing as intelligent if it seeks to devise and apply Turing tests to objects of its own creation.