Re: seq-some-p and nil

[Nicolas Petton]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

>>> Returning what FUN returned seems like a better choice.
>>> If you need the element matched, then you can simply arrange for FUN
>>> to return the element.
>> There is a misunderstanding here I think.
>> The way I see it, they are two different functions: the (new) seq-some,
>> and this other function that is now missing in seq, with the new
>> implementation of `seq-some'.
>
> I don't think so.  Both functions can be one and the same.
> If you really want seq-find, you can define it as
>
>   (defun seq-find (pred seq)
>     (seq-some (lambda (x) (and (funcall pred x) x)) seq))
>
> But I'm far from convinced it's worth having them both,

Can you elaborate on why you think it's not worth it?

IMO, finding an element in a sequence is a very common operation, and to
do that now with `seq-some' one would have to add extra code to the
lambda each time, which I find cumbersome, but more importantly is not
very good in terms of code reuse.

Nico
-- 
Nicolas Petton
http://nicolas-petton.fr

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature