Scott Sauyet

I'm wondering about `slice` too. While I'd hate to lose that -- I use the vanilla equivalent all the time -- it might be time to simply gain this consistency...

@ku8ar: > So in this case, removing the negative indices handler will be additional logic... Yes it would. But it might be nice to be able to answer the question,...

Thank you for a well-written, well-reasoned PR. I absolutely think we should unify index handling in `prop` and `propEq` (and presumably also `propIs`, `propOr`, and `propSatisfies` as well.) I honestly...

@customcommander: > as far as I can tell we could do something similar with `pathEq`: But that's still a problem, as I'm concerned, all the `prop*` functions should have similar...

> I recreated Ramda in Python lately Care to share? I'd love to see the results! > and found a few predicates which became helpful for logic. These do look...

@bionicles: Are you interested in creating this PR?

I can certainly see a benefit. Do you have an implementation in mind?

So perhaps something like this: ```js const any = (pred, xs) => reduce( (soFar, x) => soFar || pred(x), false, xs ) ``` (maybe with a `reduced` thrown in for...

@GingerPlusPlus: Operating on iterables seems a great idea, but it should probably be thought of as a library-wide enhancement, and not specific to one function.

Agreed. This would be a very good idea. Do you have an interest in creating a PR for this?