Re: string> missing?

[Nick Andryshak]

>> > 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 see no reason to be "consistent" here.  There's no requirement to
> have in Emacs all possible inequality functions, just for consistency.
>
> Now, if there are good reasons to add specifically this function,
> let's hear them.  "Consistency" isn't such a reason, because then we'd
> need to add gobs of other functions for similar "consistency" reasons.

What good reasons are there specifically to keep the '>' function? What
does '(> A B)' do that '(< B A)' doesn't?

- Nick