The lazy `take' has another reason to return '() instead of an error: avoiding any force of the input "list" when you want 0 elements. This is similar to why `first', `second', `third', etc are not like the ones in racket, and probably never will be.
On Thursday, Stephen Chang wrote: > I meant in lazy-take, which is what was changed in this push (args are > flipped). If it behaves that way in Racket, then I guess lazy should > be consistent. > > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Robby Findler > <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: > > Do you mean (take "nonlist" 0)? That's '() in regular Racket, I think > > to accommodate improper lists. > > > > C:\Users\Administrator\git\exp\plt>Racket.exe > > Welcome to Racket v5.0.99.7. > >> (take "nonlist" 0) > > '() > > > > Robby > > > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Stephen Chang <stch...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > >> What should be the result of (take 0 "nonlist") > >> > >> In the spirit of this bug report, I think it should be an error > >> http://bugs.racket-lang.org/query/?cmd=view&pr=11458 > >> > >> But right now it evaluates to the empty list. -- ((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
