[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: seq-some-p and nil
|
From: |
Mark Oteiza |
|
Subject: |
Re: seq-some-p and nil |
|
Date: |
Tue, 8 Sep 2015 09:37:29 -0400 |
|
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.24+9 (2dac9fa02842) (2015-08-30) |
On 08/09/15 at 03:21pm, Nicolas Petton wrote:
> > And defining seq-find as I did means it's always less efficient.
>
> It's ok, I think, for `seq-find' to reuse `seq-some'. You can't both
> want to remove code duplication and be as efficient as the code you are
> reusing.
Why not reuse seq-find in seq-some? It at least looks (to me) a little
cleaner than the other way around
(defun seq-some (pred seq)
(funcall pred (seq-find (pred seq)))
- Re: seq-some-p and nil, (continued)
- 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 <=
- Re: seq-some-p and nil, Stefan Monnier, 2015/09/08
- Re: seq-some-p and nil, Mark Oteiza, 2015/09/08
- Re: seq-some-p and nil, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/09/09
- Re: seq-some-p and nil, Mark Oteiza, 2015/09/09
- Re: seq-some-p and nil, Nicolas Petton, 2015/09/07
Re: seq-some-p and nil, Nicolas Petton, 2015/09/03