Re: index-of and empty stuff

Of course I was not in the room . There may be a very good reason - it
is not at all apparent. If there is a good reason it's worth knowing
(in fact it's also worth knowing if there isn't a good reason) so
please bear with my question(s).

On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Michael Kay <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 20 Dec 2013, at 17:50, Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> if I am searching a sequence of strings with index-of having the empty
>> string as the second argument will give me 0.
>>
>> Why throw  an error if the 2nd argument is empty sequence,
>> irrespective of the type of the first argument.
>>
>> Isn't 0 the obvious answer here.
>>
>
> If you had taken part during the discussions when these functions were
specified, you would know that a design that's obvious to one person may be
counter-intuitive or even repulsive to everyone else in the room.
>
> Whether the design would be better the way you describe it is not really
worth debating. In the end these decisions are arbitrary and you just have to
live with them the way they are. If you want a function that behaves
differently, you can always write your own.
>
> Michael Kay
> Saxonica