Hi, a funny coincidence. I was just experimenting with ". args" a few days ago - the number and order of arguments, that is. I tried it on "filter" since I always seem to forget the order of arguments.
(define (my-filter . args);; ignores the order of arguments (filter (car (filter procedure? args)) (car (filter list? args)))) (my-filter number? '( 1 a 2 b)) >> (1 2) (my-filter '( 1 a 2 b) number?) >> (1 2) I'm not seriously suggesting to use this hack, just a funny coincidence... br, jukka > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Eli Barzilay > Sent: 30 January 2011 22:15 > To: Mark Engelberg > Cc: [email protected]; John Clements > Subject: Re: [racket] Lazy take is the identity? > > > On Wednesday, Mark Engelberg 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). > > You were probably referring to `take' here -- that's a known issue. > The lazy version follows Haskell, and was there before `take' was > added to the main language. I don't have any idea for fixing this > nicely now. > > -- > ((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/users _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
