I meant to say, I'm seeing that list-ref behaves the same in #lang lazy and #lang racket.
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Stephen Chang <[email protected]> wrote: >> P.S. I was surprised to see that list-ref in #lang lazy takes the args in >> opposite order than in #lang racket (which takes the list first). > > I'm seeing the same behavior: > > Welcome to DrRacket, version 5.0.99.6 [3m]. > Language: Lazy Racket [custom]. >> (list-ref '(1 2 3) 1) > 2 >> (list-ref 1 '(1 2 3)) > . . C:\plt\collects\lazy\lazy.rkt:43:24: list-ref: expects type > <non-negative exact integer> as 2nd argument, given: (1 2 3); other > arguments were: 1 > > > > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 3:40 AM, Mark Engelberg > <[email protected]> wrote: >> I get an error in 5.0.2, rather than 0. >> >> --Mark >> >> P.S. I was surprised to see that list-ref in #lang lazy takes the args in >> opposite order than in #lang racket (which takes the list first). >> >> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:27 PM, John Clements <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> I would expect this program to signal an error: >>> >>> #lang lazy >>> >>> (define zeros (cons 0 zeros)) >>> >>> (define should-be-error (list-ref (take 15 zeros) 1324)) >>> >>> >>> ... but instead should-be-error is bound to zero. How can I take the >>> 1000th element of a list with only 15 elements? I'm tempted to make snide >>> comments about laziness, but I'm sure it'll backfire when it turns out that >>> somehow that's the right answer after all. >>> >>> Bug report? >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> _________________________________________________ >>> For list-related administrative tasks: >>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users >> >> >> _________________________________________________ >> For list-related administrative tasks: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users >> > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
