[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: string> missing?
From: |
Nick Andryshak |
Subject: |
Re: string> missing? |
Date: |
Wed, 03 Jun 2015 12:10:50 -0400 |
Eli Zaretskii writes:
>> Why would a language have '<' without '>'?
>
> Because it's enough?
Should 'enough' be considered an acceptable standard?
Quote, atom, eq, cons, car, cdr, and cond are 'enough', right? Should
Emacs be reduced to this handful of functions?
>> > With that argument, we'd also need string<= and string>=.
>>
>> Nothing wrong with that.
>
> That's just the tip of the iceberg. We have quite a few of other
> similar situations in Emacs Lisp.
I don't think adding in a few small functions to satisfy some
inconsistencies makes the rest of that iceberg very menacing. I
understand where you're coming from with this argument, but I don't
really buy it. Emacs has matching functions for < and <=, why not
string<?
- Nick
- string> missing?, Nicolas Petton, 2015/06/03
- Re: string> missing?, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/06/03
- Re: string> missing?, Nicolas Petton, 2015/06/03
- Re: string> missing?, Tassilo Horn, 2015/06/03
- Re: string> missing?, Nick Andryshak, 2015/06/03
- Re: string> missing?, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/06/03
- Re: string> missing?,
Nick Andryshak <=
- Re: string> missing?, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/06/03
- Re: string> missing?, Nick Andryshak, 2015/06/03
- Re: string> missing?, Andreas Schwab, 2015/06/03
- Re: string> missing?, Alan Mackenzie, 2015/06/03
- Re: string> missing?, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/06/03
- Re: string> missing?, Nick Andryshak, 2015/06/03
- Re: string> missing?, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/06/03
- Re: string> missing?, Nick Andryshak, 2015/06/03
- Re: string> missing?, Jay Belanger, 2015/06/03
- Re: string> missing?, Nick Andryshak, 2015/06/03