Re: seq-some-p and nil

[Nicolas Petton <nicolas@petton.fr>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 569 bytes --]

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

> And using seq-some doesn't have the weird nil corner case.

Just like CL's `find-if' and Scheme's `find', if one is looking for nil,
and if `seq-find' is not supposed to return a boolean, then it's fine
with me.  You'd always have `seq-some' if it's an issue in a specific
scenario anyway.

> 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.

Nico

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