- I added the prefix "seq-" to all functions
- I removed "seq-first" and "seq-rest"
- I added "seq-contains-p" and "seq-uniq"
- Both new functions are tested
- I rewrote "seq-some-p"
- "sequences.el" is loaded in "loadup.el"

I'm also willing to document these functions in the Elisp manual.

Regards,
Nico


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

>> I understand your point.  Then what do you think about having all other
>> sequence functions prefixed with "seq-"?
>
> Yes, you'll want to add seq-* aliases for things like elt.
>
>> For backward-compatibility, I could keep the current names as aliases,
>> and maybe later obsolete them.
>
> We can start by having seq-elt be an alias for elt (rather than the
> other way around) so as not to need changing anything else.
>
>>> The different of cost between "rest of a list" and "rest of an array" is
>>> so large that merging the two this way is probably not a good idea.
>> Do you mean that the implementation is lacking in some way or that you
>> would remove the "rest" function all together?
>
> I think it's not just an implementation detail but a fundamental
> limitation, so I'd just remove it.  Those who really want it can use
> subseq (or whatever its new name will be, e.g. seq-subseq).
>
> Sebastien Vauban <sva-news@mygooglest.com> writes:
>> Why?  Isn't it still useful for packages in general (and ELPA in
>> particular) so that autoloads files are generated, and these only are
>> what's needed to be loaded... allowing performance gains at startup?
>
> You might as well put a
>
>    ;;;###autoload (require 'seq)
>
> at that point (or add it to loadup.el).
>
>
>         Stefan

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