Man, I recall a slightly different sentiment when you edit papers we co-author. :)
Robby On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > > "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 > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
