Re: string> missing?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Nick Andryshak <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
> Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 15:34:14 -0400
> 
> >> What good reasons are there specifically to keep the '>' function?
> >> What does '(> A B)' do that '(< B A)' doesn't?
> >
> > If you want to argue for removal of one of them, feel free.
> 
> Perhaps my comparison was not explicit enough: it was intended to make
> you think about why both < and > exist when one is clearly "enough", and
> then apply those same reasons to the issue at hand.
> 
> So, why do both exist?

Because they do.  The cause is lost in history.

> Of course consistency is not a /requirement/, I never claimed it was.
> But I think we would agree that it's usually a good goal to strive
> towards because inconsistent leads to confusing and a bad user
> experience.

No, I don't agree.

> Having one comparison operator without the other is simply confusing to
> developers. If I'm writing code where '<' exists and works, I believe
> it's reasonable for me to assume that '>' will also. Apply this same
> logic to string< and string>.

That's exactly the point: there's no need to apply the same logic to
both cases.

And don't forget that you also have compare-strings, which can do
both.