[racket] question about foldl implementation

+1,
jos 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: users-bounces at racket-lang.org 
> [mailto:users-bounces at racket-lang.org] On Behalf Of Matthias Felleisen
> Sent: 13 August 2010 23:19
> To: Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
> Cc: users at racket-lang.org; Joe Marshall
> Subject: Re: [racket] question about foldl implementation
> 
> 
> I privately +1ed Joe, and I all supportive of introducing new 
> folds and phasing out the old ones. 
> 
> 
> On Aug 13, 2010, at 4:04 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Joe Marshall 
> <jmarshall at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >> It seems to me that the Haskell version is better.
> > 
> > The Haskell ordering also has the advantage of fitting with 
> the Typed 
> > Racket type system for variable-arity functions.
> > --
> > sam th
> > samth at ccs.neu.edu
> > _________________________________________________
> >  For list-related administrative tasks:
> >  http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
> 
> _________________________________________________
>   For list-related administrative tasks:
>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users