Re: string> missing?

[Nick Andryshak]

Eli Zaretskii writes:

>> Why would a language have '<' without '>'?
>
> Because it's enough?

Should 'enough' be considered an acceptable standard?

Quote, atom, eq, cons, car, cdr, and cond are 'enough', right? Should
Emacs be reduced to this handful of functions?

>> > With that argument, we'd also need string<= and string>=.
>> 
>> Nothing wrong with that.
>
> That's just the tip of the iceberg.  We have quite a few of other
> similar situations in Emacs Lisp.

I don't think adding in a few small functions to satisfy some
inconsistencies makes the rest of that iceberg very menacing. I
understand where you're coming from with this argument, but I don't
really buy it. Emacs has matching functions for < and <=, why not
string<?

- Nick