Re: string> missing?

[Alan Mackenzie]

On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 12:50:47PM -0400, Nick Andryshak wrote:
> >> > 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?

For convenience.  `>' is used a LOT.  It would be a positive pain to be
without it.

On the other hand, `string>' would be used very seldomly.  So seldomly,
that it probably wouldn't be worth the space it would fill up.  But if
anybody disagrees, he is able to add `string>' to his .emacs, or his own
packages.

> - Nick

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).