[racket-dev] `take' argument order

About a minute ago, Robby Findler wrote:
> Just on general principle, I think that making take in lazy match
> take in regular racket is more important than matching Haskell, but
> I don't really have a firm enough grasp on the details to have a
> strong opinion either way on the below.

[Yes, that's true regardless.  If `take' in plain `racket' stays as
is, then eventually the one in lazy will need to change.  It just
happened to be the first thing that made me look at the order more
closely, and discover thet other issues.  As another point, 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.]

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