[racket-dev] `take' argument order

6 minutes ago, Stephen Bloch wrote:
> 
> On Jun 8, 2011, at 9:55 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> 
> > ... the
> > justification for the argument order in Haskell is not laziness but
> > its implicit currying -- so of course it shouldn't be a reason to make
> > lazy racket follow it.]
> 
> Another justification for Haskell's argument order is compatibility
> with English: "take 5 primes" makes a lot more sense than "take
> primes 5".  It could be argued that compatibility with English is
> even more important than compatibility with Clojure, or Haskell, or
> SRFI/1, or racket/typed....

That counters a lot of existing racket functions (`list-ref' vs "the
nth element of"), and worse -- it contradicts some uniformity (if you
follow English, then `for-each' should not have the same order as
`map').

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!