Re: anyone else think (take) is backwards?

[Stephen C. Gilardi]

On May 6, 2009, at 10:11 PM, e wrote:

is the difference that (take) is indicating laziness by putting the index first?

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 10:09 PM, e <evier...@gmail.com> wrote:

(take) makes perfect sense the way it is, but it doesn't seem
consistent with other similar things in that many things take the
collection, first.


to be: "(function thing argument)" ... except for (take) -- and maybe
other cases?

consider (get), (nth), and how java interop looks. The pattern seems

This thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/clojure/browse_thread/thread/456ded569d6a7280

and the one it points to have good info on that.





--Steve

Based on that discussion, I think the order of the arguments for take is correct, but its second argument's name (coll) suggests that a collection goes there rather than a seq. Following Rich's arguments in the other thread, I think it would be an improvement for arguments representing seqs to have a name like "s" (which has some precedent in clojure.core) rather than "coll" (which occurs much more frequently in clojure.core).

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature