> I can believe that (it's often handy to use "nil-in-nil-out" when
> composing functions which may return nil). But there's also the risk
> that you hide real errors, leading to weird behaviors that are more
> difficult to track down.
I see allowing more nil values in string-ey functions as a very Lisp-ey
thing to do.
I'm really really happy that Emacs Lisp isn't Scheme-like. Stuff like