While having a copy of Shrunk and Whiteout thrown at us, no less. On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 6:43 AM, Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: > 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
_________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev