On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: > About a minute ago, Robby Findler wrote: >> Just on general principle, I think that making take in lazy match >> take in regular racket is more important than matching Haskell, but >> I don't really have a firm enough grasp on the details to have a >> strong opinion either way on the below. > > [Yes, that's true regardless. If `take' in plain `racket' stays as > is, then eventually the one in lazy will need to change. It just > happened to be the first thing that made me look at the order more > closely, and discover thet other issues. As another point, the > justification for the argument order in Haskell is not laziness but > its implicit currying -- so of course it shouldn't be a reason to make > lazy racket follow it.]
So, part of the discussion is changing the argument order for strict Racket's take? That seems difficult, for backward compatibility reasons. Robby _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
