thanks. after reading that it seems to fit with my intuition that it has to do with "laziness" and streams. It's like I have this '3, and in (take 3 ...) . . .and now I'm gonna start jamming a sequence into it coming from right to left and see what I get.
vs. (get) or java interop, where you have some object, and now you want to ask some question about it. is that a good way to think of it? On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 11:07 PM, Stephen C. Gilardi <squee...@mac.com> wrote: > 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. >>> >>> consider (get), (nth), and how java interop looks. The pattern seems >>> to be: "(function thing argument)" ... except for (take) -- and maybe >>> other cases? > > > This thread: > > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure/browse_thread/thread/456ded569d6a7280 > > and the one it points to have good info on that. > > 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). > > --Steve > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
