Late reply, but better than never. On 2013-03-10 16:20:14 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote: > 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.
I'm fine with this. > * 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.) I would much prefer a `list?` if backwards compatibility for this isn't a concern. Has anyone *ever* used the "feature" that `take` can operate on non-lists? > * 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. I'm less sure about this change, since the `f` suffix isn't particularly verbose and the integer case is likely more common, but I'm not opposed to it either. Cheers, Asumu _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
