Re: seq-some-p and nil

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

>>>> then in most cases, I think the code ends up just as simple with
>>>> seq-some as with seq-find.
>> [...]
>>> To make things easier to understand, I'm taking the example of finding
>>> the first odd number in a seq:
>> I've never needed to do that.
> That was just an example.  You never needed to find an element from
> a sequence?

On its own, no; only to do something with it.  So I think in many cases
you can cheaply move the equivalent of (and <pred> x) into the seq-some
search, in many other cases you can instead cheaply move the processing
of the result into the seq-some search.

Of course, there are still remaining cases where you'll end up needing
(lambda (x) (if (my-pred x) x)), but in my experience, it's not frequent
enough to make a seq-find useful.

This said, we have lots of such functions I find useless, so don't let
that prevent you from adding it to seq.el.  Just don't forget to warn
about its little semantic problem with nil in the docstring.


        Stefan