From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Nick Andryshak Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: string> missing? Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 16:53:03 -0400 Message-ID: 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> <83h9qor2kk.fsf@gnu.org> <873828ply5.fsf@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1433365004 23101 80.91.229.3 (3 Jun 2015 20:56:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 20:56:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: jay.p.belanger@gmail.com Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 03 22:56:38 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 1Z0Fi9-000542-65 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 22:56:29 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38046 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z0Fi8-0002EB-HB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 16:56:28 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54960) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z0Feu-0005Vx-G1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 16:53:09 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z0Feq-0001Ro-TL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 16:53:08 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-vn0-x234.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400c:c0f::234]:44393) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z0Feq-0001Rh-Py for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 16:53:04 -0400 Original-Received: by vnbg129 with SMTP id g129so2783970vnb.11 for ; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 13:53:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type; bh=b+O3vEf4anOWxYUf7/NPkwGSWXH4zZrMO104Xj5pHug=; b=eiTZMLXjkmvBOcPZkpozC/lNyD3ISF0lJUQ/RJzzgkACYztXRpL+XWRq2XyTYF/MV3 0ylsPejO43GT05qFLoLr1uz2sMiKAgRup87pMqhbzSobmE8AgnMl8nShKB5xQ4qm/sRW Kv1kMLKHB0yLeMPjXcX2QAziV8GNf8xvDpQMvMFADh3uOAwAwgz0dJGxX1jTwnjQKEVv LACEB96yLd+JjlnNNsE7q9F8JQeYmmHVQK83CFDZzZAEzmkrjEk1jejpHzA850nZBxfY P7YSHe9GiztqDIANa/kTpe5GnzpW5GPNyfN0eXwFEcqheMxScGH2QBliVRPdxUS7h8Wk MyZA== X-Received: by 10.52.143.233 with SMTP id sh9mr50195511vdb.26.1433364784277; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 13:53:04 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from NAND-LT ([47.19.134.82]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fi9sm2094206vdb.27.2015.06.03.13.53.03 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 03 Jun 2015 13:53:03 -0700 (PDT) In-reply-to: <873828ply5.fsf@gmail.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400c:c0f::234 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:187002 Archived-At: Jay Belanger writes: > In what way is any one of the answers the least bit unreasonable? Since you asked: > Because they do. "Because they do" is a non-answer. > The cause is lost in history. Nonsense. > No, I don't agree. I really don't understand why Eli would say something like this. I think it contradicts his work. > That's exactly the point: there's no need to apply the same logic to > both cases. This makes no sense: I'm sure many people have seen the function 'string<' and assumed that there exists a counterpart 'string>'. I think that this is a reasonable assumption to make. In fact, that's probably why we're having this (rather silly) discussion in the first place. - Nick