Re: [racket-dev] take, drop, split-at, etc -- and argument order, again

2013-03-09 Thread Eli Barzilay
A few minutes ago, Eli Barzilay wrote: Here's why I think it might be useless: For just `takef-right', it's possible to do something smart that scans the list in order, keeping a pointer to the beginning of the current good block. This avoids a double scan *but* the

Re: [racket-dev] take, drop, split-at, etc -- and argument order, again

2013-03-09 Thread Eli Barzilay
It's no committed pushed. With the bad argument order. Just to show how bad it is, it's not just `findf' -- there's many others, like `partition' which is very similar, yet it takes the predicate first. I'd really like to fix the order of all of these things. Maybe someone has some idea how

Re: [racket-dev] take, drop, split-at, etc -- and argument order, again

2013-03-09 Thread Robby Findler
#lang racket2 ? On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org wrote: It's no committed pushed. With the bad argument order. Just to show how bad it is, it's not just `findf' -- there's many others, like `partition' which is very similar, yet it takes the predicate first.

Re: [racket-dev] take, drop, split-at, etc -- and argument order, again

2013-03-09 Thread Eli Barzilay
An hour ago, Robby Findler wrote: #lang racket2 ? That is much later than I hoped. (And when it comes, I certainly hope it won't be `racket2'.) On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org wrote: It's no committed pushed.  With the bad argument order. Just