From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: string> missing? Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 22:53:31 +0300 Message-ID: <83h9qor2kk.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87oakxkvqw.fsf@petton.fr> <83zj4grgkc.fsf@gnu.org> <87sia8n8b5.fsf@petton.fr> <87zj4gu821.fsf@gnu.org> <83sia8rdkm.fsf@gnu.org> <83pp5crbfd.fsf@gnu.org> <83mw0gr4eh.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1433361619 32596 80.91.229.3 (3 Jun 2015 20:00:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 20:00:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: nicolas@petton.fr, emacs-devel@gnu.org, tsdh@gnu.org To: Nick Andryshak Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 03 22:00:11 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Z0Epc-0005Fy-U1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 22:00:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37624 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z0Epc-00017s-FR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 16:00:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33067) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z0EjS-0007bu-IE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 15:53:47 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z0EjO-0005AV-LU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 15:53:46 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout29.012.net.il ([80.179.55.185]:46213) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z0EjO-000595-CL; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 15:53:42 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout29.012.net.il by mtaout29.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NPD00H00WDDU600@mtaout29.012.net.il>; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 22:53:00 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by mtaout29.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NPD00BD5WKBTS40@mtaout29.012.net.il>; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 22:52:59 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 80.179.55.185 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:186999 Archived-At: > From: Nick Andryshak > Cc: tsdh@gnu.org, nicolas@petton.fr, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 15:34:14 -0400 > > >> What good reasons are there specifically to keep the '>' function? > >> What does '(> A B)' do that '(< B A)' doesn't? > > > > If you want to argue for removal of one of them, feel free. > > Perhaps my comparison was not explicit enough: it was intended to make > you think about why both < and > exist when one is clearly "enough", and > then apply those same reasons to the issue at hand. > > So, why do both exist? Because they do. The cause is lost in history. > Of course consistency is not a /requirement/, I never claimed it was. > But I think we would agree that it's usually a good goal to strive > towards because inconsistent leads to confusing and a bad user > experience. No, I don't agree. > Having one comparison operator without the other is simply confusing to > developers. If I'm writing code where '<' exists and works, I believe > it's reasonable for me to assume that '>' will also. Apply this same > logic to string< and string>. That's exactly the point: there's no need to apply the same logic to both cases. And don't forget that you also have compare-strings, which can do both.