Three minutes ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> I like the current order of `take' because it's consistent with
> Racket's dominant convention. To the list of advantages, I would add
> "consistent with `take' in SRFI-1".
(Yeah, that was implicit in the original reason...)
> It seems strange to make `take' less compatible with SRFI-1's `take'
> toward the end of making `take' be more compatible with SRFI-1's
> `take-while'. Global consistency (not to mention backward
> compatibility) seems better served by being incompatible with
> SRFI-1's `take-while'.
I'm slightly more concerned about compatibility with other languages,
which also sounds odd, but has been a source of confusion.
In any case, I do take compatibility as a priority, so I'm suggesting
allowing both orders for this case.
--
((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
