Man, I recall a slightly different sentiment when you edit papers we
co-author. :)
Robby
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Matthias Felleisen matth...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
Take from the sequence of primes the first five numbers and add them up.
This is at most slightly mangled :-)
On Jun 8,
While having a copy of Shrunk and Whiteout thrown at us, no less.
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 6:43 AM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
Man, I recall a slightly different sentiment when you edit papers we
co-author. :)
Robby
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Matthias Felleisen
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
10 minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org 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
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
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 `take'
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
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org 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),
10 minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org 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
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 justification for
At Wed, 8 Jun 2011 10:15:58 -0500,
Robby Findler wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org 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
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 the argument
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 the list -- not a big problem by itself,
but:
* Contradicts Haskell's
13 matches
Mail list logo
