Re: string> missing?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Nick Andryshak <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
> Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 12:10:50 -0400
> 
> >> Why would a language have '<' without '>'?
> >
> > Because it's enough?
> 
> Should 'enough' be considered an acceptable standard?

Yes.

> Quote, atom, eq, cons, car, cdr, and cond are 'enough', right?

No.

> > 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 see no reason to be "consistent" here.  There's no requirement to
have in Emacs all possible inequality functions, just for consistency.

Now, if there are good reasons to add specifically this function,
let's hear them.  "Consistency" isn't such a reason, because then we'd
need to add gobs of other functions for similar "consistency" reasons.

> I understand where you're coming from with this argument, but I
> don't really buy it.

Then don't.  It's OK to disagree about something, nothing wrong about
that.  Fortunately, you can have this function for you, if you need
it, with a simple one-liner.