[racket-dev] `take' argument order

10 minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
> > In any case, I do take compatibility as a priority, so I'm
> > suggesting allowing both orders for this case.
> 
> I did not mention this (remaining silent in response to your comment
> with the word 'flame' in the original message), but I am strongly
> against this choice.

(Well, I didn't want flames, but I did want to hear +1s and -1s.)

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