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