[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 10:53:30 -0700 (PDT) |
> seq-some already solves those problems. The user can provide a FUN that
> returns a cons if she so wishes. It's simple and general.
So is assembly language simple and general. Why make callers of
`seq-some' deal with the nil-value-vs-not-found issue and 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, Nicolas Petton, 2015/09/08
- 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 <=
- 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, 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