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

Philip Kaludercic [08/Aug  7:59pm GMT] wrote:
> Finding the maximal or minimal element of a list according to some
> comparative metric has been something I have run into multiple times
> (just now, I was trying to find the newest version of a package
> according to `version-list-<'), but always implemented by hand.  I would
> like to propose extending the existing seq-min and seq-max functions
> with an optional argument, along the lines of `sort':

'sort' used to be just (sort SEQ LESSP) but now it has another calling
convention that uses CL-style keyword arguments.

To avoid this happening again, let's use (sequence &key lessp) right
away -- it's already a cl-defgeneric anyway.

Code looks good, interesting approach with the eval-when-compile
(I would have used a cl-loop since it doesn't seem like it's truly a
reduction, but what you have is fine).

-- 
Sean Whitton