Re: seq-some-p and nil

[Nicolas Petton <nicolas@petton.fr>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 996 bytes --]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>> Can you elaborate on why you think it's not worth it?
>
>> IMO, finding an element in a sequence is a very common operation,
>
> Conceptually, yes, but if you take into account the details of how you
> specify which element you want, as well as what you want to do with it,
> then in most cases, I think the code ends up just as simple with
> seq-some as with seq-find.

I don't follow.  How can the code end up just as simple when finding an
element matching a predicate?

To make things easier to understand, I'm taking the example of finding
the first odd number in a seq:

    (seq-some (lambda (elt) (and (oddp elt) elt))
              '(0 1 2 3))

    (seq-find #'oddp '(0 1 2 3))

The first version is not only much harder to read, it also IMO shows
that the lambda mostly re-implement what a `seq-find' function should
provide by default in the library.

Nico
-- 
Nicolas Petton
http://nicolas-petton.fr

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 512 bytes --]