bug#25129: 26.0.50; seq-some function

[Tino Calancha]

On Wed, 7 Dec 2016, Nicolas Petton wrote:

> Tino Calancha <tino.calancha@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Nicolas Petton <nicolas@petton.fr> writes:
> >
> > > Pierre Lorenzon <devel@pollock-nageoire.net> writes:
> > >
> > > Hi Pierre,
> > >
> > > > I well understand now that I must use seq-find instead of
> > > > seq-some but I think that I will not be the only one being
> > > > confused by these functions specifications !
> > >
> > > There is a mistake (extra if) in the documentation, I will fix that.
> > >
> > > Other than that, is the following less confusing?
> > >
> > >   Return non-nil if PRED returns non-nil for at least one element of SEQUENCE.
> > >   If so, return the value returned by PRED.
>
> > The previous doc string contains more information: it explicitely says
> > that it returns the _first_ non-nil (PRED element).
>
> Indeed, what about:
>
>  Return non-nil if PRED returns non-nil for at least one element of SEQUENCE.
>  If so, return the first non-nil value returned by PRED.
Yeah better.
The first line with the repetition of 'non-nil' sounds a little poetic.
How about?
 Return non-nil if PRED is satisfied for at least one element of SEQUENCE.
  If so, return the first non-nil value returned by PRED.