RE: seq-some-p and nil

[Nicolas Petton <nicolas@petton.fr>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1079 bytes --]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

>> > Was there something wrong with the suggestion to return,
>> > as the non-nil value, a cons (ELEMENT . VALUE)?
>> >
>> > (Where ELEMENT is the sequence element that satisfies the
>> > predicate, and VALUE is the return value of the predicate
>> > for that element.)
>> >
>> > That gives you "some" element that satisfies the predicate
>> > (the first such).  And it gives you the result of the test.
>> > Each of these can be useful, depending on the context.
>> 
>> It would work, and I believe Scheme has a similar function, but I don't
>> want seq-some to have this extra complexity.  It could be another
>> function though, just like in Scheme.
>
> What extra complexity?  It creates one cons cell which has as its
> car and cdr things that presumably already exist.

I meant extra complexity for the user.  If seq-some was returning a
value, I wouldn't expect it to be a cons cell, I'd almost always want
the element of the sequence straight away.

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

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