So ... no objections to this?
Yesterday, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> While trying to finally get `take-while' etc, I realized that the
> problem with the `take' (and `drop' and related) argument order is
> even more thorny. The existing problem is that `take' in lazy takes
> the number first and then the list -- not a big problem by itself,
> but:
>
> * Contradicts Haskell's argument order
>
> * Contradicts Clojure's argument order
>
> * *And* contradicts srfi-1's argument order for `take-while', which
> takes the predicate first
>
> So how about making it take its inputs in any order? (Possibly
> deprecating the number-last in the docs and eventually removing it.)
>
> No need to start a flamewar -- I know why it would be bad. But the
> above mess and potential confusion seems big enough to outweigh it.
> Specifically, it seems to me very odd now to go with the srfi-1
> ordering for `take-while' and friends. (I'm also fine with swapping
> the arguments completely, but it seems that the breakage makes it a
> bad change.)
>
> To make things balanced --
>
> * I see two arguments for keeping the order as it is now: (a) it makes
> it more like `list-ref' etc, where the number comes last (potential
> solution if the above is acceptable: make it do the same too, or
> just admit that indexing is different from these things); and
> (b) it accomodates better a potential future (list-slice l from too)
> which would look odd with the from-too arguments before the list.
>
> * OTOH, the advantages of the number-first order are being compatible
> with the rest of the world, and an order that is uniformly used in
> `take-while' etc.
>
> Opinions?
--
((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
