[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: string> missing?

From: Nick Andryshak
Subject: Re: string> missing?
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 12:10:50 -0400

Eli Zaretskii writes:

>> Why would a language have '<' without '>'?
> Because it's enough?

Should 'enough' be considered an acceptable standard?

Quote, atom, eq, cons, car, cdr, and cond are 'enough', right? Should
Emacs be reduced to this handful of functions?

>> > With that argument, we'd also need string<= and string>=.
>> Nothing wrong with that.
> That's just the tip of the iceberg.  We have quite a few of other
> similar situations in Emacs Lisp.

I don't think adding in a few small functions to satisfy some
inconsistencies makes the rest of that iceberg very menacing. I
understand where you're coming from with this argument, but I don't
really buy it. Emacs has matching functions for < and <=, why not

- Nick

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]