Oh, I love a good bikeshedding thread! ;)
I think JCG nailed it:
most
- It's not excessively numeric.
- Unlike "best" it's not judge-y or normative.
- The polarity isn't _too_ weird for negatives. (Although "least
<quality>" might be smoother English, "most <opposite-quality>" or
"most {un,in}-<quality>" is usually clear enough. Disagree? Define
the negation, `least`, too.)
In short, "most" is the most general adjective to use here. (See what
I did there. ;))
Also the best. :)
p.s. Although `find-most` is OK, IMO `find-` is usually a noise prefix
from the Department of Redundancy Department. Sort of like naming a
function `return-foo` instead of just `foo`. What else would a
function do except find or return foo?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
