[racket-dev] `take' argument order

Man, I recall a slightly different sentiment when you edit papers we
co-author. :)

Robby

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Matthias Felleisen <matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>
> "Take from the sequence of primes the first five numbers and add them up." This is at most slightly mangled :-)
>
>
> On Jun 8, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
>> 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!
>> _________________________________________________
>>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
>
>
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
>