"Take from the sequence of primes the first five numbers and add them up." This
is at most slightly mangled :-)
On Jun 8, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> 6 minutes ago, Stephen Bloch wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 8, 2011, at 9:55 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>>
>>> ... the
>>> justification for t
At Wed, 8 Jun 2011 10:15:58 -0500,
Robby Findler wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > In any case, I do take compatibility as a priority, so I'm suggesting
> > allowing both orders for this case.
>
> I did not mention this (remaining silent in response to your comme
Me too. I like `take-until' as well.
2011/6/8 Jay McCarthy :
> I'd really like #:unless as well
>
> iPhoneから送信
>
> On 2011/06/08, at 9:21, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
>> Anyone seconds this?
>>
>> And if so, then maybe for-loops should have an `#:unless' too? (I
>> know that this was raised, but now
6 minutes ago, Stephen Bloch wrote:
>
> On Jun 8, 2011, at 9:55 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
> > ... 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.]
>
> Another justifi
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Stephen Bloch wrote:
>
> On Jun 8, 2011, at 9:55 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
>> ... 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.]
>
> Ano
On Jun 8, 2011, at 9:55 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> ... 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.]
Another justification for Haskell's argument order is compatibility w
10 minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > In any case, I do take compatibility as a priority, so I'm
> > suggesting allowing both orders for this case.
>
> I did not mention this (remaining silent in response to your comment
> with the word 'fl
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> In any case, I do take compatibility as a priority, so I'm suggesting
> allowing both orders for this case.
I did not mention this (remaining silent in response to your comment
with the word 'flame' in the original message), but I am strongly
A few seconds ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Wed, 8 Jun 2011 10:21:18 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > In any case, I do take compatibility as a priority, so I'm
> > suggesting allowing both orders for this case.
>
> You also mentioned disallowing improper lists as a related change,
> which could be
At Wed, 8 Jun 2011 10:21:18 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> In any case, I do take compatibility as a priority, so I'm suggesting
> allowing both orders for this case.
You also mentioned disallowing improper lists as a related change,
which could be significant.
I'd much rather leave this alone and
Three minutes ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> I like the current order of `take' because it's consistent with
> Racket's dominant convention. To the list of advantages, I would add
> "consistent with `take' in SRFI-1".
(Yeah, that was implicit in the original reason...)
> It seems strange to make `t
I like the current order of `take' because it's consistent with
Racket's dominant convention. To the list of advantages, I would add
"consistent with `take' in SRFI-1".
It seems strange to make `take' less compatible with SRFI-1's `take'
toward the end of making `take' be more compatible with SRFI
10 minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> >
> > [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 o
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Eli Barzilay 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 ha
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
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.
Sorry,
Robby
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Eli Barzilay
So ... no objections to this?
Yesterday, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> While trying to finally get `take-while' etc, I realized that the
> problem with the `take' (and `drop' and related) argument order is
> even more thorny. The existing problem is that `take' in lazy takes
> the number first and then
I'd really like #:unless as well
iPhoneから送信
On 2011/06/08, at 9:21, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> Anyone seconds this?
>
> And if so, then maybe for-loops should have an `#:unless' too? (I
> know that this was raised, but now there's more experience using it.)
>
>
>
> Yesterday, Jay McCarthy wrote
Anyone seconds this?
And if so, then maybe for-loops should have an `#:unless' too? (I
know that this was raised, but now there's more experience using it.)
Yesterday, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> I've used them before and I find they "read" better than using negate.
>
> 2011/6/7 Eli Barzilay :
> >
19 matches
Mail list logo
