I like it. I find that most words are more natural when their stack effects are ( larger-part smaller-part -- ... ) and the "seq" is of course larger than the "subseq".
2017-01-21 7:55 GMT+01:00 John Benediktsson <mrj...@gmail.com>: > Hi, > > I pushed a (breaking compatibility) change to the development branch of > Factor that swaps the arguments for ``start``, ``start*``, and ``subseq?``. > > Instead of: > > ( subseq seq -- ? ) > > it is now: > > ( seq subseq -- ? ) > > It is more natural this way, and most places it was used did some form of > ``swap subseq?``, but it does create a backwards compatibility problem in a > relatively common word. > > Please let me know if this is a problem for anyone. > > Thanks, > John. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > _______________________________________________ > Factor-talk mailing list > Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk > -- mvh/best regards Björn Lindqvist ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Factor-talk mailing list Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
