GNU bug report logs - #25129
26.0.50; seq-some function

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Pierre Lorenzon <devel <at> pollock-nageoire.net>
To: tino.calancha <at> gmail.com
Cc: 25129 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, nicolas <at> petton.fr
Subject: bug#25129: 26.0.50; seq-some function
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2016 17:57:06 +0100 (CET)

From: Tino Calancha <tino.calancha <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#25129: 26.0.50; seq-some function
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 19:31:41 +0900 (JST)

> 
> 
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2016, Nicolas Petton wrote:
> 
>> Tino Calancha <tino.calancha <at> gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Nicolas Petton <nicolas <at> petton.fr> writes:
>>>
>>>> Pierre Lorenzon <devel <at> pollock-nageoire.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Pierre,
>>>>
>>>>> I well understand now that I must use seq-find instead of
>>>>> seq-some but I think that I will not be the only one being
>>>>> confused by these functions specifications !
>>>>
>>>> There is a mistake (extra if) in the documentation, I will fix
>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> Other than that, is the following less confusing?
>>>>
>>>>   Return non-nil if PRED returns non-nil for at least one element
>>>>   of SEQUENCE.
>>>>   If so, return the value returned by PRED.
>>
>>> The previous doc string contains more information: it
>>> explicitely says
>>> that it returns the _first_ non-nil (PRED element).
>>
>> Indeed, what about:
>>
>>  Return non-nil if PRED returns non-nil for at least one element
>>  of SEQUENCE.
>>  If so, return the first non-nil value returned by PRED.
> Yeah better.
> The first line with the repetition of 'non-nil' sounds a little
> poetic.
> How about?
>  Return non-nil if PRED is satisfied for at least one element of
>  SEQUENCE.
>   If so, return the first non-nil value returned by PRED.
    OK that is in fact more precise.

    Pierre

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.