Code relying on cl-seq.el or seq.el?

[boyechko]

@localauthor, how do you feel about code relying on cl-seq.el or seq.el? Both are part of Emacs, and would make some code cleaner. For example, zk--directory-files contains the following:

(remq nil (mapcar
               (lambda (x)
                 (when (and (zk-file-p x)
                            (not (string-match-p
                                  "^[.]\\|[#|~]$"
                                  (file-name-nondirectory x))))
                   x))
               list))

With cl-seq, this could become

(cl-remove-if-not (lambda (x)
                        (and (zk-file-p x)
                             (not (string-match-p
                                   "^[.]\\|[#|~]$"
                                   (file-name-nondirectory x)))))
                      list)

Not a big difference, for sure, but cl-seq version seems somewhat easier to read. There are also cases in zk-index.el that would benefit from cl-find-if. The equivalent seq.el functions would be seq-filter and seq-find.