"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
