Re: string> missing?

[Nick Andryshak <nandryshak@gmail.com>]

>> 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?

Readability, maybe. Sometimes it's nicer or it makes more sense to use
"greater than" over "less than" or vice versa.

> But that doesn't reflect in any way on the issue at hand. Once again,
> there's no requirement to be "consistent" in this sense.

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.

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>.

- Nick