Re: lengths and other stuff

[Daniel Brooks]

Tomas Hlavaty <tom@logand.com> writes:

> On Sun 27 Dec 2020 at 15:35, Daniel Brooks <db48x@db48x.net> wrote:
>> Tomas Hlavaty <tom@logand.com> writes:
>>> I think you introduced two bugs:
>>
>> I'm surprised that it was more than one!
>
> Not sure what do you mean.  The intention of the proposed predicates is
> to improve code easily and not introduce any bugs.  You just showed that
> your proposal cannot work.

I was agreeing with both you and Alfred. His point seemed to be that
length> is a bad idea because there are better alternatives. There are
often better alternatives but, as I pointed out, using them takes a lot
more thought. I didn't expect my use of multiple-value-bind to be
perfect, since I spent only a minute looking at the code and hadn't
tested it. I didn't expect anyone to write back five minutes later
to point out not one but two problems with it though!

I think length> and family are a good idea (though I would have gone
with the longer-than-p suggestion instead), but that it's also a good
idea to use alternatives when possible.

db48x