bug#81581: [PATCH 1/1] Add a LESSP argument to 'seq-min' and 'seq-max'

> From: Philip Kaludercic <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected],  [email protected],  [email protected]
> Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2026 08:54:59 +0000
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> >> Or did I misunderstand you, and you are advocating for a case
> >> distinction on LESSP, and dispatch to `min' and `max' if LESSP is `<`
> >> (instead of nil)?
> >
> > Yes, that's what I meant.
> 
> So something like

Something like that, yes.

> > I'll also ask why shouldn't the default be '<' anyway, to preserve
> > backward compatibility?
> 
> The old implementations would signal an error if you were to call the
> method with non-numerical values in the list, so would argue that we are
> not breaking backwards compatibility, unless you think that there are
> applications that depend on type errors being raised.

Thanks, let's hear from others.