[racket-dev] `take' argument order

From: Eli Barzilay (eli at barzilay.org)
Date: Wed Jun 8 10:32:21 EDT 2011

A few seconds ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Wed, 8 Jun 2011 10:21:18 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > In any case, I do take compatibility as a priority, so I'm
> > suggesting allowing both orders for this case.
> You also mentioned disallowing improper lists as a related change,
> which could be significant.

Actually that's not needed -- the only possibly ambiguous case is two
integers, and in that case it could go with the srfi-1 order.  (Which
would make it ugly, and I thought that diverging from srfi-1 on
improper lists is better, since racket already diverges on other
srfi-1 things.)

> I'd much rather leave this alone and spend time elsewhere.

OK.  And since I'll probably do `take-while' etc very soon -- I'll go
with the (self-inconsistent) srfi-1 order.  Unless someone has an
objection to that?

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

Posted on the dev mailing list.