Re: seq-every-p documentation suggestion

[Mekeor Melire]

2024-02-20 21:53 factotum@rclayton.org:

> The documentation for seq-every-p is incomplete because it specifies a 
> function
> satisfied by the definition
>
>   (defun seq-every-p (P S) t)
>
> which I'm assuming isn't an acceptable implementation for seq-every-p.  One
> potential fix is to rewrite the specification as
>
>   Return non-nil if and only if PRED returns non-nil for all the elements of
>   SEQUENCE.
>
> or more explicitly
>
>   Return non-nil if PRED returns non-nil for all the elements of SEQUENCE,
>   otherwise return nil.

Another alternative would be to use "iff":

    Return non-nil iff PRED returns non-nil for all the elements of
    SEQUENCE.

> The documentation should also describe what is expected when S is the empty
> list.

Sounds good. Would you like to submit a bug report and a patch?