[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: seq-some-p and nil
|
From: |
Drew Adams |
|
Subject: |
RE: seq-some-p and nil |
|
Date: |
Wed, 9 Sep 2015 13:46:40 -0700 (PDT) |
> > Why make callers of `seq-some' deal with the nil-value-vs-not-found
> > issue and...
>
> There's no such issue with seq-some. It only affects seq-find.
Oh, right, because you have not done what Nico proposed wrt returning
the element. Fair enough.
The second part of what I wrote, which you elided, still applies:
Why make callers of `seq-some' ... wrap existing predicates they want
to reuse with cruft, just to get the desired effect? Why not just
have `seq-some' DTRT, always?
- Re: seq-some-p and nil, (continued)
- Re: seq-some-p and nil, Stefan Monnier, 2015/09/08
- Re: seq-some-p and nil, David Kastrup, 2015/09/08
- RE: seq-some-p and nil, Drew Adams, 2015/09/08
- RE: seq-some-p and nil, Nicolas Petton, 2015/09/08
- RE: seq-some-p and nil, Drew Adams, 2015/09/08
- RE: seq-some-p and nil, Nicolas Petton, 2015/09/09
- RE: seq-some-p and nil, Drew Adams, 2015/09/09
- Re: seq-some-p and nil, Stefan Monnier, 2015/09/09
- RE: seq-some-p and nil, Drew Adams, 2015/09/09
- Re: seq-some-p and nil, Stefan Monnier, 2015/09/09
- RE: seq-some-p and nil,
Drew Adams <=
- RE: seq-some-p and nil, Nicolas Petton, 2015/09/09
- Re: seq-some-p and nil, Stefan Monnier, 2015/09/08
- Re: seq-some-p and nil, David Kastrup, 2015/09/08
- Re: seq-some-p and nil, Nicolas Petton, 2015/09/08
- Re: seq-some-p and nil, David Kastrup, 2015/09/08
- Re: seq-some-p and nil, Stefan Monnier, 2015/09/08
- Re: seq-some-p and nil, Nicolas Petton, 2015/09/09
- Re: seq-some-p and nil, Nicolas Petton, 2015/09/08
- Re: seq-some-p and nil, Mark Oteiza, 2015/09/08
- Re: seq-some-p and nil, Stefan Monnier, 2015/09/08