Re: seq-some-p and nil

[David Kastrup]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

>>>>> then in most cases, I think the code ends up just as simple with
>>>>> seq-some as with seq-find.
>>> [...]
>>>> To make things easier to understand, I'm taking the example of finding
>>>> the first odd number in a seq:
>>> I've never needed to do that.
>> Marvelous.
>
> You did notice the "most" qualifier, right?

Oh, that changes _everything_, _everything_ I am sure.

When at that time in my life when I had been attending lectures some
professor would have stated

"As an example, let's see how to take the inverse of the matrix
( 1  2 )
( 2  1 )"

I would never felt the urge to tell the professor that this is a
particular matrix I never actually needed to invert.  I'm pretty sure
that the entire lecture room would have bursted into laughter at me
volunteering this particular bit of information and considering it
important enough to ask for everybody's attention.

It is an example.  Nobody expects life-shattering relevance of that
example for any purpose but being an example.

-- 
David Kastrup