(Sorry for the subject change, I wanted to separate it from the new *f
things.)
So it seems to me that most people agree that the current order for
these things is bad, since I didn't hear from anyone who *likes* the
current order. (Feel free to mail me off-list if you do.)
Assuming this, here's a suggestion that I made in the past for
resolving this:
* Make the existing `take', `drop', `split-at' accept their arguments
in *either* order.
* Change the required types for lists to be a null-or-pair, or even
require a `list?', or require a `list?' but throw an error only if
scanning gets to a non-null-terminator. Any of these would make
sure that the arguments are distinguishable. (You can currently
write something like (take 0 1) -- it's not an error.)
* Declare the old index-last order as a compatibility thing. Have TR
use sane order only.
* The new *f functions can use only the sane order.
* And another thing that can be done to reduce the name clutter is to
have only the plain names, but make them accept either an index or a
predicate.
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
